- From: Nadir Amra <amra@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:51:58 -0500
- To: xsl-editors@w3.org
Has there been a decision on the MIME type for XSL docs? Is it text/xsl? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Message-ID: <3796FBFB.ABF54E22@jclark.com> > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:09:48 +0700 > From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> > To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp> > CC: xsl-editors@w3.org > Subject: Re: Not text/xsl > > The one place where it is mentioned is in an example. The document has > to have that example, and I can't do that example without mentioning a > media-type. To me text/xsl makes much more sense than application/xsl. > The best I can do is to add a note saying that the media-type hasn't > been decided and text/xsl is not registered yet. > > MURATA Makoto wrote: > > > > At the ietf-xml-mime mailing list, Ned Freed (a co-author of MIME RFCs) > > said that the media type for XSL should belong to the application > > top-level media type rather than the text type. We certainly > > need to discuss. Until a final decision is made, the WD should not > > mention "text/xsl". > > > > http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/ > >
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 15:52:04 UTC