- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:08:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: davidc@nag.co.uk (David Carlisle)
- Cc: xsl-editors@w3.org
> > Right. XHTML doesn't support (except to ignore) non-XHTML namespaces > > within its documents, so a compound media type is required in all cases. > > Hmm. In practice given a document with lots of namespaces I think trying > to think of suitable mime types is a lost cause. text/xml or > application/xml would seem to be the best that can be done here. My current thinking is of a new generic type separate from */xml (primarily because of XSLT, but other cases might be out there too), perhaps even with a suffix convention. Something like application/xmld, where "xmld" means "Dispatchable XML". > If you are really saying that if in a collection of xhtml files some > just happen to have mathml or svg illustratons then I have to configure > the server to send those documents with a different mime type then I > don't think that will ever work in practice. Well, that's already happening with XHTML+SMIL, XHTML+Voice, etc.. I want to put an end to the potential explosion of compound media types. What I'm saying is that there exists a certain rule set that when followed, will ensure that multi-namespace documents can be consistently processed when described with a single media type. I'm also saying that the XSLT simplified form doesn't follow these rules. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 14:42:51 UTC