It's a little ways out from the discussions that have dominated this list,
but I thought it might raise some interesting issues. (text/xfo would be
for documents using the XSL Formatting Objects vocabulary.) I'm violently
opposed to these transmissions, but the use of MIME as a supporting
infrastructure component seems likely, so I thought I'd put it on the radar
screen.
From: Miles Sabin <msabin(_at_)cromwellmedia(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: "'xsl-list(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com'"
<xsl-list(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
Cc: "'simonstl(_at_)simonstl(_dot_)com'" <simonstl(_at_)simonstl(_dot_)com>
Subject: RE: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:41:28 +0100
Simon St.Laurent wrote,
As a result, the 'meaningful Web' project that was the
driving force (at least in public) for the creation of
XML is at risk. Server-side transformation from
semantically rich private vocabularies to presentation-
oriented public vocabularies may leave the Web exactly
where it was before - interesting to read, but not very
useful.
Silly question, but (modulo the invention of a few new
mime types), wouldn't the distinction between,
Accept: text/xml, text/xsl
and,
Accept: text/xfo
resolve this issue? Ie. if you're happy to recieve a
presentation-oriented server-side processed document you
use the latter. If you want it undigested, you use the
former.
Cheers,
Miles
--
Miles Sabin Cromwell Media
Internet Systems Architect 5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)181 410 2230 London, W6 0LJ
msabin(_at_)cromwellmedia(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk England
Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com