I think what you're asking is, what's the resulting document's type or !DOCTYPE? In my case, the xsl supplied in the xml-stylesheet directive does the transformation and the resulting document is (strict) xhtml with the correct doctype. Perhaps the CSS2 "media" attribute, if added to Atom links would provide this cue about the format... E.g. media="print, handheld".
Re an extension element, this all works (is valid) if the link rel is an IRI, so an extension is not needed. I was looking for other use cases for a stylesheet link rel., such as the feed entry case, to bolster a position to have stylesheet added to the List of Relations. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Antone Roundy Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 7:05 AM To: atom-syntax@imc.org Subject: Re: Link rel attribute "stylesheet" On Feb 26, 2006, at 9:10 PM, James Yenne wrote: > My feeds contain a generic xml-stylesheet, which formats the feed for > display along with a feed-specific css. Since xsl processors do not > have a standard way to pass parameters to xsl stylesheets, I provide > this feed-specific css to the xsl processor in the feed as a link with > rel="stylesheet". Generating xhtml with this xsl/css solution works > for rendering both in IE6 and FF1.5. (Why does IE7 rip out > xml-stylesheet directives?) > > A link rel="stylesheet" seems to be the most efficient solution, > however, a fully qualified URI relation does the job too. I would > like to request a stylesheet link relation be added to the IANA List > of Relations and supported in the validators. Thoughts? One problem with this is that there's no machine readable way without an extension attribute to indicate what format the stylesheet is going to transform the data to. If you're going to add an extension attribute, I'd suggest just making the whole thing an extension element instead. Of course, my opinion is partly based on my preference which was rejected by the group for limiting the link element to links intended for traversal, so maybe that doesn't matter. But certainly the possibility should be considered that this is stretching the use of the link element beyond what it was designed for. Antone
