Subject: RE: [xsl] Preserving XHTML markup From: Eric Vitiello <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:52:39 -0500 |
-- Michael Kay [Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:11:18 -0000]: >> this brings up an interesting question. >> >> which is preferred, using xsl:copy-of or putting the XML in >> CDATA tags, and using value-of? >If you have HTML that isn't well-formed, my preference is still to >make it well-formed (use Dave Raggett's tidy) and then embed it directly, >but in this case using CDATA is an alternative. The disadvantage is that >you can then only copy it to the output, you can't transform it; and when >copying it you have to use disable-output-escaping, which doesn't work if you >want to use the result tree as input to another process, rather than >serializing it immediately. (And specifically, it doesn't work for that reason with >Netscape). I suppose I've never actually had to do a secondary transformation on the content portion, which maybe is why I never thought of that scenario. I tend to always encompass my HTML in CDATA, but in the future, I suppose I should simply use copy-of, and have the ability to transform the HTML too. Thanks for everyone's help in clearing up my misconceptions. --- Eric Vitiello Perceive Designs <www.perceive.net> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Preserving XHTML markup, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] Preserving XHTML markup, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] few question regarding th, Attila Strauss | Date | [xsl] RE: Muenchian technique, was , DPawson |
Month |