headers
MURATA Makoto | 1 Nov 1999 10:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Question: URI reference and media type in HTML/XML

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > 	<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xml" href="#style1"?>
> > 
> > We have agreed that fragments do not have media types.  What will  
> > happen to such media types combined with fragment identifiers?
> > Should they be simply ignored?
> 
> This is another case where the fragment inherits the media type.
> Again, the entire document must be fetched (as text/xml), and then
> the fragment identifier resplved in terms of that. With the example
> above, the fragment shoould be resolved in the resource containing the
> reference.

You are talking about how to locate a fragment by using frgament identifiers.  
Yes, we need to know the media type of the entire document.

I was actually talking about how can we tell if a located frament is XSLT 
or not.  We might have some other stylesheet languges which are expressed 
in the XML syntax.

Bert Bos wrote:
> What we don't know yet, is what type the style sheet is. If it is
> embedded, it is probably CSS or XSL, but how do we find out which?
> Heuristics will work in this case, of course, but that is not a
> scalable solution. It seems to me that we have no other place to put
> the type of the fragment than on the PI...

Yes, this is my point.  

Makoto
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Simon St.Laurent | 4 Nov 1999 00:31
Favicon

Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

This came off XML-dev; I'm sure a lot of you have heard about it. I've cut
it down to the paragraph that's most directly relevant to MIME content
types, as it raises some important issues.

>From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl <at> w3.org>
>To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev <at> ic.ac.uk>
>Subject: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:33:41 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>Sender: owner-xml-dev <at> ic.ac.uk
>Reply-To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl <at> w3.org>
>>
>> XHTML 1.0 is hereby sent back to the HTML working group for further work.
>>
>>A few respondents were also concerned about the use of the text/xml
>>media type for delivering xHTML, considering this to be "premature".
>>If a document conforming to XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces is not to be
>>considered "text/xml", this raises an important issue as to what is.

I'd appreciate hearing opinions on this.  Apart from a preference for
application/xml over text/xml, the more important issue for me is whether
we should discuss 

1) transmitting entities of text/html-xml identified as text/xml
2) transmitting entities of application/html-xml identified as application/xml

Does the -xml suffix described in the I-D permit such 'fallback'?  This is
where I wish things were more hierarchically structured.  It seems clear to
me that permitting transmission of text/html as text/xml is perverse, but
the use of the suffix seems like it might justify such usage.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Christopher R. Maden | 4 Nov 1999 01:19

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[Simon St. Laurent]
>>From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl <at> w3.org>
>>>
>>> XHTML 1.0 is hereby sent back to the HTML working group for further work.
>>>
>>>A few respondents were also concerned about the use of the text/xml
>>>media type for delivering xHTML, considering this to be "premature".
>>>If a document conforming to XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces is not to be
>>>considered "text/xml", this raises an important issue as to what is.

[For text/* below, read 'text/* or application/*'.]

I don't understand why they were using text/xml in the first place.  First
of all, XHTML is still HTML, and there is a well-defined media type for it:
text/html.  But more importantly, XHTML is largely an exercise in
pragmatism; it's intended to work in older browsers (cf. <br /> syntax) -
text/html will work in older browsers, while text/xml won't.  Is this a
hard decision?

-Chris

--
Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect
Exemplary Technologies
One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405
San Francisco, CA 94111
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Terry Allen | 4 Nov 1999 01:22
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

What is the problem here?  The quoted response is inconclusive (sentence 1)
and a non sequitur (sentence 2).  Are you asking what MIME type XHTML
should use today?  after it is emitted as a Recommendation?  If so,
why not */xml?

regards, Terry Allen

Terry Allen                             
Advanced Technology Group               
Commerce One, Inc.
Walnut Creek, Calif.
tallen[at]sonic.net
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MURATA Makoto | 5 Nov 1999 06:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> I don't understand why they were using text/xml in the first place.  First
> of all, XHTML is still HTML, and there is a well-defined media type for it:
> text/html.  But more importantly, XHTML is largely an exercise in
> pragmatism; it's intended to work in older browsers (cf. <br /> syntax) -
> text/html will work in older browsers, while text/xml won't.  Is this a
> hard decision?

In my understanding, future XHTML will NOT work on old browsers and it 
will contain vocabularies other than XHTML (e.g., MathML, RDF, SMIL, 
something I would invent tomorrow).  

Makoto

Fuji Xerox Information Systems

Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata.makoto <at> fujixerox.co.jp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Maden | 5 Nov 1999 09:13

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[MURATA Makoto]
>In my understanding, future XHTML will NOT work on old browsers and it
>will contain vocabularies other than XHTML (e.g., MathML, RDF, SMIL,
>something I would invent tomorrow).

But then why all the concern with backwards-compatible syntax like <br />
and avoiding the XML declaration?  Labeling it text/xml won't be
backwards-compatible, so there's no point in contorting the syntax.  It
just seems to me that if you pick a design restriction (backwards
compatible or not), then the decision about the media type follows
naturally, with little room for debate.

-Chris

--
Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect
Exemplary Technologies
One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405
San Francisco, CA 94111
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
MURATA Makoto | 5 Nov 1999 09:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> 
> But then why all the concern with backwards-compatible syntax like <br />
> and avoiding the XML declaration?  

Because the very first version of XHTML is designed to work on old browsers.  
Future versions are different.

Makoto

Fuji Xerox Information Systems

Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata.makoto <at> fujixerox.co.jp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Baker - Ottawa Consumer and Embedded Div. | 5 Nov 1999 19:13
Picon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG


>I don't understand why they were using text/xml in the first place.  First
>of all, XHTML is still HTML, and there is a well-defined media type for it:
>text/html.  But more importantly, XHTML is largely an exercise in
>pragmatism; it's intended to work in older browsers (cf. <br /> syntax) -
>text/html will work in older browsers, while text/xml won't.  Is this a
>hard decision?

No, but it's a lot worse (potentially) than just "won't work".
If XHTML 1.0 is commonly delivered as */xml now, then future
processors might very well be expected to understand, for
example, <img src=""> even though that syntax would be
deprecated in a future version of XML that included XLink.

Not that this problem is insurmountable, but it probably is
likely premature to allow it now before we consider the
possible consequences.

MB
--
Mark Baker                     Personal Apps Lead, Sun Microsystems
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA   http://java.sun.com/products/personalapps
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
MURATA Makoto | 7 Nov 1999 11:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I'd appreciate hearing opinions on this.  Apart from a preference for
> application/xml over text/xml, the more important issue for me is whether
> we should discuss 
> 
> 1) transmitting entities of text/html-xml identified as text/xml
> 2) transmitting entities of application/html-xml identified as application/xml

I do not think that we need more specialized media types for HTML.  text/html, 
text/xml, application/xml are good eonugh.

text/xhtml was discussed in this ML, and it was discussed heavily in the 
HTML WG.  In my understanding, there is a consensus that a new specilized 
media type for HTML does not solve any problems.  If we need something that works on 
existing browsers, we only have to use text/html.  If we need something that 
allows addition of other vocabularies (e.g., MathML and RDF), we already have 
text/xml and application/xml.

Murray Altheim wrote:
> In thinking about this more, I can see the value in defining a new
> media type 'text/xhtml' for the family iff we see that all applications
> within that space using the same infrastructure and mechanisms for 
> extensibility, so that any application within that space can predict
> how to read what has been extended and the implications of the
> extension. We *may* be able to solve that with document profiles.
> 
> But if it's still open season within 'text/xhtml' then we've only put 
> off the problem until later, and also compounded it by meaninglessly 
> fragmented the 'text/xml' space. If there is a solution for XML it 
> should be the same as for XHTML, and so my sense is that either the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MURATA Makoto | 7 Nov 1999 11:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

Mark Baker - Ottawa Consumer and Embedded Div. wrote:
> 
> No, but it's a lot worse (potentially) than just "won't work".
> If XHTML 1.0 is commonly delivered as */xml now, then future
> processors might very well be expected to understand, for
> example, <img src=""> even though that syntax would be
> deprecated in a future version of XML that included XLink.

I agree that this is very harmful.

> Not that this problem is insurmountable, but it probably is
> likely premature to allow it now before we consider the
> possible consequences.

In my understanding, XHTML 1.0 will be commonly delivered as text/html.  
The vote from Xerox asked omission of text/xml from XHTML.

Future versions of HTML will be delivered as something else, but it likely 
to be text/xml or application/xml.

Makoto

Fuji Xerox Information Systems

Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata.makoto <at> fujixerox.co.jp
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |

Gmane