David Carlisle wrote:
text/xsl
or
text/xml
text/xsl has never been registered (although it was used in some
examples in various documents, and it works in IE)
following the new house style for xml releated mime types it's _supposed_
to be text/xslt+xml but
per rfc 3023, use of 'text' media type is less than favorable. if the intent
is to process the xsl and not just view it, or unless some other encoding
related conditions are met, application/xslt+xml is preferable.
of course, using this today has the downside that web browsers / OSes treat
unrecognized subtypes of 'application' with great caution and don't easily
give you the option of saying "from here on out, treat this the same way you
treat text/xsl".
text/xml
is also correct (as xslt is XML) and has the benefit of working in
IE Mozilla and netscape, so I'd use text/xml.
i'd underscore the fact that there's a clear difference between
what is correct and what works in these applications... "works"
in the sense that the applications behave the way you're intending.
the original poster will have to decide whether to do what's correct
or just do what works. it's like HTML in the Netscape's heyday...
-mike
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list