Subject: Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal. From: "Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla" <sevillar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:48:46 +0800 |
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 08:29:41AM +0100, DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Considering the number of questions this raises, > How many rules would be broken if were added > to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec? > Well, for one thing, is not an internally-defined XML entity (the way & and < are). Conceivably you could create another entity in a different dialect of XML where meant something other than the Unicode character  , and if this were included in the XSLT standard, there would be no way of creating this other entity in a stylesheet, because it would then *always* produce  . Oh, and by the way, XSLT *does* include , if your output method is HTML that is. :) -- Rafael R. Sevilla <sevillar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> +63(2) 8177746 ext. 8311 Programmer, InterdotNet Philippines +63(917) 4458925 http://dido.engr.internet.org.ph/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5CDA17D8
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, DPawson | Thread | RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, DPawson | Date | Re: [xsl] correction: how to get ne, Samuzeau Pascal |
Month |