|
Subject: Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal. From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:19:08 +0100 |
On Monday, August 06, 2001 8:29 AM DPawson wrote: > Considering the number of questions this raises, > How many rules would be broken if were added > to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec? I'm not clear as to what this would solve. To me, it looks as though most of the problems stem from misunderstandings about how XML parsers handle character data, and the stages in the transformation process at which parsing and serialisation occur. People's problems in this area won't go away until they grasp what's at stake there, and mandating that XSLT processors when serialising into HTML must always represent NO-BREAK SPACE as would surely be muffling the symptoms instead of curing the ill? Michael --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Beddow http://www.mbeddow.net/ XML and the Humanities page: http://xml.lexilog.org.uk/ --------------------------------------------------------- XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Trevor Nash | Thread | RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, DPawson |
| Re: [xsl] Generic template for sele, Trevor Nash | Date | RE: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, DPawson |
| Month |