Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Good idea.
I can add @method to px:fileset-filter as well.
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:50
Do we have a clear use case for "give me all files from this fileset that are
XML|binary|test" so I don't see a strong need for @method on px:fileset-filter.
If not I'd suggest waiting for @method on px:fileset-filter, which would depend
on the above-mentioned new functions in media-type utils and cannot be 100%
accurate (we cannot be aware of all the media types).
Original comment by rdeltour@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:57
Btw. did you have a specific function signature for the XSLT functions in mind?
I'm thinking they would take a <d:file/> element as a parameter and return a
xs:boolean...
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:00
I was thinking of sth even simpler: is-binary(xs:string) return xs:boolean
Original comment by rdeltour@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:48
Right, there's only @media-type that needs to be checked anyway. Should there
be a 'html' method as well?
is-xml('application/xml') : true
is-xml('application/smil') : true
is-binary('application/xml') : false
is-binary('sound.wav') : true
is-binary('text/html') : false
is-xml('application/xhtml+xml') : true
is-html('application/xhtml+xml') : true
is-html('text/html') : true
is-html('text/plain') : false
is-text('text/html') : true
is-text('text/plain') : true
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:56
Btw; are "application/smil" for SMIL 1.0 and SMIL 2.0, while
"application/smil+xml" is just for SMIL 3.0?
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 11:34
...they seem interchangeable: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4536
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 11:37
right, the '+xml' mime type is the norm since 2.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20051213/smil-modules.html#smilModulesNSSMIL
21MimeType
Original comment by rdeltour@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 12:16
Should px:mimetype-detect check the version of the SMIL-files and omit the
'+xml' for SMIL <=2.0 ? Or is it ok to assign '+xml' to all SMIL-files?
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 12:34
I think it's OK, it even makes things easier.
Original comment by rdeltour@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 12:41
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 18 Mar 2013 at 2:04
See https://github.com/daisy-consortium/pipeline-modules-common/pull/4
Original comment by josteinaj@gmail.com
on 18 Mar 2013 at 2:04
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
rdeltour@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:46