- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:05:46 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, www-tag@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek, I respectfully disagree, it is a stylesheet, not xhtml. In any event, I agree with Mark that the namespace (pick one!) is not always indicative of the application. Cheers, Chris Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Paul, > I disagree, the document is in my opinion logically XHTML while > it uses XSLT, which is perfectly legal due to open content model > of XHTML. The handling is mainly HTML, and the HTML processor may > use XSLT to have the complete picture, but according to HTML spec > (IIRC) it is free to ignore anything unknown to it, like the > xsl:value-of element. > Anyway, this disagreement shows that this debate on media types > etc. has its obscure points. 8-) > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Paul Prescod wrote: > > > Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > > > >... > > > > > > Using the top-level namespace to identify a document's application is > > > tempting, but doesn't always prove useful. > > > > Consider this example from the XSLT specification: > > > > <html xsl:version="1.0" > > xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" > > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/strict"> > > <head> > > <title>Expense Report Summary</title> > > </head> > > <body> > > <p>Total Amount: <xsl:value-of select="expense-report/total"/></p> > > </body> > > </html> > > > > It's a perfect example. This document is logically XSLT, not HTML. > > > > Paul Prescod > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 10:06:55 UTC