Re: SGML output from XSL?

Subject: Re: SGML output from XSL?
From: Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:25:45 +0100

Paul Prescod wrote:
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> > HTML Voyagers idea of a well formed empty element is *exactly the same*
> > as XMLs, since the former is written in the latter.
> True, but from context I know that Didier's message was not about Voyager.
> It was about HTML-as-it-is-standardized. That's the HTML discussed in the
> XSL specification.

No; XSL outputs XML. If XSL can output HTML, it is because it can be
expressed in XML which is what Voyager does. So it needs a URIO to
define the HTML namespace and ther URI for the HTML 4.0 recommendationis
as good as any.

> > 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.
> That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the possibility
> (described in the XSL specification) of generating data that is
> well-formed according to some syntax other than XML (i.e. legacy HTML,
> comma delimited file, etc.).

OK well I would say that is outside the scope of XSL. It was discussed
earlier, and the idea of a post processing filter that takes XML and
spits out some wierd stuff seemed to be that way people thought this
should be done.

> "If an implementation wishes to use something in the result tree or
> stylesheet to control the output of a non-XML representation of the result
> tree, it should use the result namespace."

But the result namespace is not the same thing as the name of the
non-XML representation (whic, not being XML, doesn';t have a namespace).


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread