- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: 18 Jul 2002 15:44:18 -0400
- To: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org> writes:
> > Is there a desire to have agreement for (1) the "type" value of
> > xml-stylesheet PI and (2) the transfer protocol content type for the
> > style object?
>
> Are you suggesting that one might want to dissociate (1) and (2)?
> I'm not sure I understand why.
It was a question.
> > Are there extant values of "type" for the xml-stylesheet PI other
> > than "text/css" and "text/xsl"?
>
> The stylesheet PI spec says that the PI follows the behaviour of
> HTML4's <LINK REL="stylesheet">. HTML4 does not mandate any value for
> the type attribute of LINK. So I guess the answer to your question is
> "potentially, yes".
As I understand it, the scope of the xml-stylesheet PI is all XML
document types under browser class user agents. If so, for the
xml-stylesheet PI the range of possible values for "type" might be
expected to go beyond the range for HTML's rel="stylesheet link
elements.
There would be a sanity feature in requiring a match, but not a
security feature. It strikes me that that possible values of the
xml-stylesheet "type" PI might want to ride with XML document type
definitions and the "application/xml" umbrella now in use at W3 for
"http://www.w3.org/Math/XSL/" is indeed sensible unless some browser
provider sees a need to know the stylesheet type from the
transport header before knowing the root XML namespace.
> > Might not W3 imagine new values, perhaps, "text/css-ng", coming
> > along later?
>
> Yes, as anyone who comes up with a new stylesheet language might.
-- Bill
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 15:44:29 UTC