Subject: RE: [xsl] doe alternative? From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:53:06 +0100 |
Mike Kay said: > Since XML comments can't contain elements (only text that looks like > elements), you wouldn't expect the XSLT result tree to allow a comment > node to contain an element node, would you? Pragmatically? Yes. As XML? No. that's reasonable. My intent is that a human could remove the comments to 'reveal' valid XML if necessary. Hence what I describe as elements, I should now describe as plain text containing pointy brackets :-) Thanks Mike, David. Regards DaveP - NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your system. RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RNIB. RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] doe alternative?, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] doe alternative? Sorry, s, DPawson |
Re: [xsl] doe alternative?, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] generalized unique elemen, Laura Jenkins |
Month |