On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:23:38 -0400, David_N_Bertoni@lotus.com wrote: >Strange, I just tried Saxon, and accpets _both_ "text/xsl" and "text/xml". >Can you point to a published W3C recommendation which defines what the type >is supposed to be?
Accepting both is certainly a better procedure than just text/xsl. Now to the "illegal alien" status of text/xsl. ;) I had my first XSLT contacts via Cocoon, and they used text/xsl everywhere, so I did too. Then, a year or so later, someone on some mailing list educated me that there is no IANA MIME type text/xsl, and thus it has to be text/xml (he maybe had more reasons, but I remember this one). And he's right: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/ That points us to RFC 3023, and that has this: 8.17 Application/xslt+xml Content-type: application/xslt+xml <?xml version="1.0" ?> Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSLT) documents are XML documents whose content describes stylesheets for other XML documents, as defined by [XSLT]. As a format based on XML, XSLT documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix convention in their MIME content-type identifier. ***However, no content type has yet been registered for XSLT*** and so this media type should not be used until such registration has been completed. (*** emphasis by me) So, for now, I'd say support both text/xml and text/xsl, and document text/xml as the preferred one, since that is official (make text/xsl deprecated). Ciao, Jürgen
