Subject: Re: More entity confusion and my opinion on the right way From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:20:03 +0000 |
Hi. It's certainly what I had assumed. If it isn't so, I think it certianly should be. Sometime soon I'm going to have to sit down and get my head around what the hell is happening with the resolution of < and & in the IE5b2 parser, as it's giving me all sorts of nightmares. I'm shamed to say, that my progress to date is largely through trial and error. I certainly can't intuit what is going on. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 01/07/99 07:28:21 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: More entity confusion and my opinion on the right way Paul, [SNIP] since the & can appear in the literal form, shouldn't it remain in the literal form when it is written back out from the result tree? I can understand replacing the standard entities, but an entity not declared should be left alone if it appears in a CDATA section, right? [SNIP] XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: More entity confusion and my op, John E. Simpson | Thread | Re: More entity confusion and my op, Chris Maden |
Re: More entity confusion and my op, Keith Visco | Date | Re: More entity confusion and my op, David Carlisle |
Month |