RE: [xsl] 'Problems getting '&' output instead of '&'.

["Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Mike Brown] [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxx] 
> Edward L. Knoll wrote:

> > p.s. Those with the "disable-output-escaping" chip on their 
> shoulder 
> > leave the sermonizing behind.  I'm doing real work in the real word 
> > (e.g. in much less than ideal circumstances).
> 
> God, the irony. It is exactly those less-than-ideal 
> circumstances (e.g., the fact that d-o-e only works in 
> certain situations) that make d-o-e a less-than-practical 
> solution, as you have just discovered.
> 

There is a place for d-o-e, but it is a __residual__ place.  Almost
always, when you really understand your problem in terms of a transform
from input tree to output tree, and understand just what your output
really needs to be, you will find you do not need d-o-e.  In a very few
- very, VERY few - cases, what remains after this does require d-o-e.  

You are better off not using d-o-e if your case is not truly in the
residual.  Why? Because if it is not in the residual, but you think you
have to use d-o-e, it indicates that you do not really grasp what you
are trying to do.  Best to work to understand it better.  Then if you
find there is no alternative, you really know what is involved any why
it has to be that way.  You will be much better positioned to use d-o-e
reliably and to good advantage.

I find it hard to come up with any situation involving normal html
output where d-o-e would be needed.

Cheers,

Tom P

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