Subject: Re: [xsl] Preseving character entities From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:49 GMT |
Why can't CDATA entities be used for this? These are allowed in both XML and SGML. No. XML doesn't have CDATA entities either, it just has general internal entities that could contain markup but just happen not to have eny markup in the case of those particular definitions. That is what I meant to ask (first line of this message). How else are XHTML entities/named characters defined in all those XHTML DTD's of W3C? You mean, the named character references (entities) are resolved to predefined unicode characters, just as if one were reading XHTML with an XML parser using an XHTML DTD which defines these entities as such. It could be that browsers resolve the entities _after_ reading the data (contrary to XML Parsers usually do), but then again, I'm not a browser expert. They _could_ do it just like XML Parsers... historically SDATA entities would _never_ be resolved to unicode characters, the application would just fetch an alpha (or whatever) using some internal encoding mapping to some greek font which may well have an alpha in the position taken by "a" in a latin font for example. These days they may or may not go via a unicode table. When I mentioned that in entity and XML entity and character references are expanded at different times, I meant that they are expanded at different times within the XML parser, given <!ENTITY myalpha-1 "α"> <!ENTITY myalpha-2 "α"> the replacement text for myalpha-1 is the unicode character 945 (not the character reference α as character references are always expanded when first encountered. conversely the replacement text for myalpha-2 is an entity reference to an entity named alpha (which will have the same definition as myalpha-1 if any of the usual entity sets has been referenced), but note that α here isn't expanded (and doesn't even need to be defined) at the point that myalpha-2 is defined. To put your words into mine: I am substituting a confusing but 'correct' terminology by a clearer but incorrect terminology. I got your point, but am still not more convinced than before... except that I can prove that at least one person is confused by your "clearer" terminology. Given a question about generating entity references I gave an answer about generating entity references, assuming that what was meant was entity reference. Since the original terminoligy was a bit mixed, you'll see that I did query whether character references were the intended meaning, but I made the wrong guess and answered assuming that entity references were required. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Preseving character entit, Geert Josten | Thread | Re: [xsl] Preseving character entit, Geert Josten |
RE: [xsl] Problem for : increment a, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] grouping date ranges with ass, dmitrik |
Month |