Subject: Re: The XSL-List Digest V1 #266 From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:43:31 GMT |
Joe Kesselman writes It doesn't address general entities. Remember, an entity may represent an extended block of data, possibly external to this file, and possibly not being XML-formatted. We have to be able to refer to those by entity name. If the parser does keep a node for an entity reference and make the replacement text a child of this. Does that mean every application has to take account of this explicitly? If I want to search for an element with a particular content, do I have to explicitly allow for the fact that the content may be referenced indirectly through an entity ref? My understanding of entities was that the parser would always replace them by their content, so any application working on the parsed data need not worry about such issues. As Paul Prescod mentioned earlier what is needed is a clear statement of what the "XML data model" is. It is hard to see how one can use XML as the concrete syntax of any language (not just XSL) if it is not sufficiently well specified how that syntax is to be parsed. If it is not specified what tokens will result from parsing your stylesheet (or your document) how on earth can the XSL recommendation hope to specify what should happen next? David (feeling depressed) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: The XSL-List Digest V1 #266, keshlam | Thread | Building a pattern in XSL using one, julian . burman |
RE: <xsl:template><xsl:value-of/></, Markor, John (Non-HP | Date | Re: Standard API to XSL processors, Sanjiva Weerawarana |
Month |