RE: [xsl] Transform xml to html

["Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi.

I don't know of any rigorous reason pre is deprecated.  At the same
time, it has some foibles like not wrapping long lines that make it less
than perfect.

I used this a long time ago:

http://www.matthewwest.co.uk/computing/xml2xhtml.html

And it basically worked great. I think I had to fix some issues but I
can't rememeber what.  I'm reluctant to publish my modified version b/c
he had a copyright statement on there.


-------------->Nathan


.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:
||:.

Nathan Young
CDC Site Design & Development->Interface Development Team
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@xxxxxxxxx

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Fawcett [mailto:joefawcett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 1:10 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] Transform xml to html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Fitzsimons" <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [xsl] Transform xml to html
>
>
> > Joe Fawcett wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "andrew welch" On
> 3/10/06, Anthony
> >> Ettinger <aettinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> <pre>? ouch.
> >> Care to expand on that one... or is it too painful?
> >>
> >> Yes please let us know what's so bad about it.
> >> I know it's deprecated as well as XMP but what's the
> alternative and why
> >> are they so bad?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > You'll be pleased to hear that <pre> isn't deprecated, not
> even in XHTML
> > 2.0:
> >
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_pre>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nick.
> > --
> > Nick Fitzsimons
> > http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks. I believe that they must have meant "not to be used
> as a way of
> displaying code".
> Next time I'll check myself :)
>
> --
>
> Joe