<-prev [Thread] next-> <-prev [Date] next->
Month Index | List Home

Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.

Subject: Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
From: tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Trevor Nash)
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:04:10 GMT
>Considering the number of questions this raises,
>How many rules would be broken if &nbsp; were added
>to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec?
>
>Regards DaveP
If you mean that &nbsp; should be allowed in a stylesheet the same way
that &amp; is, then this would be a change to the XML spec.  Currently
the predefined characters are the bare minimum you need to encode all
characters without recourse to a DTD.  If you add &nbsp; to this set
why not &copy; &trade; &pound; ... 
Sorry Dave, you will just have to use bigger letters in the FAQ ;-)

Regards,
Trevor Nash
--
Traditional training & distance learning,
Consultancy by email

Melvaig Software Engineering Limited
voice:     +44 (0) 1445 771 271 
email:     tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread
<- PreviousIndexNext ->
RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Kay Thread Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Beddow
RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Kay Date Re: [xsl] Generic template for sele, Trevor Nash
Month