Subject: Re: feature request From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:40:49 +1000 |
James Robertson writes: > Half-jokingly: > > So this is the way of the future for XSLT? > > If you can't support something in a way that > works (entities), attempt to > convince people that they shouldn't even want > them in the first place ... ?
I don't think its fair to blame XSL for all this. It is going with the flow of things like SAX and DOM, which do not provide access to entities. For XSLT to do otherwise would be to place a much bigger burden on the implementors.
I really don't have a bit stake in this issue, but ...
Is it better to put the burden on the users or the implementers?
This is but one of many real-word issues that has been encountered now that XML/XSL/XPath/etc has gone "live". If there isn't a committment to meet real-world needs, what are we all on about?
------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: feature request, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: feature request, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: XSL and entities, David Carlisle | Date | Re: feature request, David Carlisle |
Month |