Re: Literal Text

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and sincerely hope that we get the tools
you describe. However XSL isn't one of those tools, and there is no reason
why it should be any more than CSS should be.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/27/99 10:52:58 AM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Literal Text





[SNIP]

While it's good to have a tool for transforming XML->XML, and I see some
advantages to having a tool that catches you when you fail to produce well
formed XML, I really think that there should be a way to produce other text
formats when appropriate.
XML is designed as much as anything for easy interchange of data.
Otherwise we
might as well go back to binary formats.  Given that, what's the use of an
interchange format without good tools for converting to and from other
formats.
Why shouldn't XSL have an <xsl:decode-text> mechanism that expands entities
and
removes the markup surrounding CDATA sections without regard for
well-formedness?  Appropriate naming should mean that anyone using it will
know
that they don't get any guar!
 antee of well-formedness in their output.
Andrew McNaughton






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