- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:02:00 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, chairs@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > 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. I couldn't find what to trim off this email. I second every single statement. -- Robin Berjon
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:02:33 UTC