Good evening.

I beg your pardon for triple messaging.

I added another note to XSLT check, under title "Technicalities", about
utilizing frames instead of in addition to images.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 17:37:08 -0000
"Schimon Jehudah sch@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ladies and Getlemen. Good evening.
> 
> *******************************************
> * This is a corrected message.            *
> * Content of "Possibilities" was changed. *
> *******************************************
> 
> I am specifying a what-is-called "middleware" to check two concerns of
> client request.
> 
> 1) Whether XSLT is available.
> 
> 2) Whether ECMAScript (i.e. JS) is available.
> 
> I wrote about this concern, a month ago or so; and, now, I intend to
> implement it.
> 
> 
> Possibilities
> -------------
> 
> * If XSLT is detected, then XML document be loaded.
> 
> * If XSLT is not detected, and JS is detected; then, the server would
>   redirect to a page with a frame with module XSLTProcessor (or
>   SaxonJS, or xslt-processor) to process the XML document.
> 
> * If neither is detected; then, the server would redirect to a raw
>   (X)HTML document.
> 
> * Alternatively, it might be that the server would redirect from XML,
>   to (X)HTML with JS, to (X)HTML without JS.
> 
> 
> Technicalities
> --------------
> 
> * XSLT be checked by an image (e.g. an invisible pixel).
> 

Possible elements may be "img", "frame", or "iframe".

I think that frames be better, as disabling of automatic loading of
images is prevalent.

> * JS be checked by "XML HTTP Request".
> 
> I ask for your advisories, as to the proper logic to implement this.
> 
> If you have other comments or criticism about any of the
> technicalities; then, please, write.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Schimon