More XSL Discussion

Subject: More XSL Discussion
From: Jeremie Miller <jeremie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:44:28 -0600 (CST)
How does anyone feel about some of the other things I've proposed, in
particular:


==> Eliminating the style rules and replacing them with a <style></style>
container within any rule?  If containers are used within rules, this just
seems like a more appropriate place to do this, instead of duplicating a
whole seperate rule structure just for applying style characteristics to
elements.


==> Attributes on the containers within a rule.  The issue so far is that
having the attributes determine the format/type of content within the
continer isn't valid XML.  Why not use CDATA as the content type for the
containers? Even though I know it is kind of a kludge and defeats the
purpose, I'd like to see some good reasoning on wether this would be
plausable.

Even if it is determined that having the containers be CDATA wouldn't
work, then why not have various containers?  Maybe instead of:
  <style format="xml"><color>red</color></style>
and
  <style format="css">color:red;</style>
You could just have:
  <style><color>red</color></style>
and
  <css>color:red;</css>


==> A Raw HTML container.  Either:
  <action format="html">RAW HTML</action>
or
  <html>RAW HTML</html>

I know XSL has it's roots in DSSSL, which isn't even related to HTML or
web page rendering, but I still feel that allowing for complete and exact
HTML compatibility within XSL is a big win, even if it only works
when XSL is being used for web page rendering.  The XSL parser might have
to do nothing more than find the <xsl></xsl> tag within the raw HTML, and
flow the correct children in at that point.


Jeremie Miller
jer@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.jeremie.com/



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread