Re: SGML output from XSL?

Subject: Re: SGML output from XSL?
From: Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 21:05:18 +0100

Paul Prescod wrote:
> "Borden, Jonathan" wrote:
> >
> > XSL can output HTML because HTML can be made well-formed.
> Not really. HTML's idea of a well-formed empty element is different from
> XML/XSL's.

HTML Voyagers idea of a well formed empty element is *exactly the same*
as XMLs, since the former is written in the latter.

XSL does not define what empty elements mean, so not sure what your
point was there.
> > XSL always creates
> > well-formed documents.
> In the abstract XSL always creates a well-formed document but the spec.
> leaves open the possibility that an actual get-your-hands-dirty
> implementation could generate whatever it needed: non XML SGML (i.e.
> HTML), binary goo or whatever. See the NOTE in teh middel of 2.2 .

Which (IMHO) is a bad idea. XSL should produce well formed documents.
The very syntax should be that you have to go to extrordinary lengths to
generate something that is not well formed.

If people just want to spit out random < and > all over the place and
not have any clue or any way of knowing whether the result is well
formed or not, just use perl or awk or something.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread