- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:03:07 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
It has been set aside since 2 years and half ... http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/08/09-minutes On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm offline, so perhaps the answer is somewhere in the minutes, but > they're not readily available. > > I seem to recall that we decided explicitly not to register a MIME > type for XProc (e.g., application/xproc+xml). What was our rational? > Was it simply that we didn't think we needed one, or that we wanted to > explicitly piggyback on RFC 3023bis (though I think the "+xml" media > type would accomplish that as well)? > > I ask because I find myself in a situation where I want to distinguish > between XSL transformations and XProc pipelines. Following the > convention of the XML Stylesheet PI and the script and link elements > in HTML, it's tempting to say: > > <transform name="foo" type="text/xsl" fileref="foo.xsl"/> > <transform name="bar" type="application/xproc+xml" fileref="bar.xpl"/> > > Except I can't because there isn't a MIME type...so if we aren't > going to define a MIME type, what should I do in this case? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | When told of a man who had acquired > http://nwalsh.com/ | great wealth, a sage replied, 'Has he > | also acquired the days in which to > | spend it?'--Solomon Ibn Gabirol > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 16:03:44 UTC