Re: Transition request: first publication of WG Note "Associating XML Documents with XForms using the XML-Stylesheet PI"

/ Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl> was heard to say:
| Working group: Forms
|
| Document title: Associating XML Documents with XForms using the
| XML-Stylesheet PI

I took a quick peek at this note this morning and I think it has a
couple of fundamental problems.

First and foremost, I think it's inappropriate to hijack the xml-stylesheet
PI to associate an editor with a document. An editor is not a stylesheet
except by the broadest of definitions.

Given that processing instructions are simple and cheap, what compelling
reason is there not to introduce a new one, such as "xforms-editor"?

Second, if the working group is determined to abuse the xml-stylesheet
PI, it strikes me that the type "application/xml" is way too broad for
the purpose. The type psuedo-attribute is the only way an application
can distinguish one PI from another.

How is an XForms editor more appropriate for "application/xml" documents
than any other imaginable kind of processing?

I humbly suggest that this note should be redrafted, ideally using a
different PI target but at a bare minimum using a more appropriate MIME
type.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.