James Clark wrote:
MURATA Makoto wrote:
I would suggest application/xsl-xml (other than application/xml).
Why application/xsl-xml rather than application/xslt-xml? Wouldn't
application/xsl-xml would suggest it was limited to XSL stylesheets
(i.e. XSLT stylesheets that generate XSL FOs)? What's needed is
something that works for any XSLT stylesheet.
I agree that xslt-xml is better.
It might be a
good idea to follow the "*/*-xml" contention,
What exactly is the current status of this convention? Has this
convention become the official policy of the media types registry? If
not, when is it expected to become the official policy?
Since the current draft is merely an I-D, there is no "official policy".
However, there appear to be no strong opposition in this mailing list. By
reading the discussion in the past, I have a feeling that some people love
the convention and others can live with it. (If somebody cannot live with it,
speak up now!)
There have been some other proposals such as the top-level media type "xml",
hierarchical media types, another convention "*/xml-*", and an added
parameter for text/xml and application/xml. Some people have strongly
disagreed with these proposals. (More about this, see the archive of this
mailing list at http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive)
Since we do not lose anything by chosing application/xslt-xml rather
than application/xslt, I think that we should try application/xslt-xml.
Cheers,
Makoto
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: +81-44-812-7230 Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata(_dot_)makoto(_at_)fujixerox(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp