Subject: Re: XSL, XT, and ruined well-formed HTML From: "Duke Nickolas" <kochun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:01:23 -0800 |
Steve Tinney wrote: > If this is really, absolutely necessary, you could hack the text() > template to detect 0xa0 and replace it with . The input to the > next phase of XML processing you mentioned might not then be valid, > though. You might get somewhere by investigating the output encoding, > but I'm not familiar enough with XT to say these days. I've switched > irrevocably to Saxon; you might look at that instead. > Right, but I don't want it to work on a browser. I want it to be parseable again as XML. As for what you're saying as far as Saxon goes... I would assume that that would have the same problems that I'm complaining about (whether or not I want it to behave as the spec recommends :-). Unless of course, Saxon would support the iso-8859-1 (or whatever) spec that I have read seems to preserve the  's as I want them preserved. Thanks for your response. I'll be looking into saxon. Duke XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL, XT, and ruined well-formed, Steve Tinney | Thread | Re: XSL, XT, and ruined well-formed, Juergen Hermann |
Re: XSL, XT, and ruined well-formed, Steve Tinney | Date | RE: MSXML abominations happening fo, Pawson, David |
Month |