Subject: Re: Using Entity References in XSL Templates From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:31:46 GMT |
> In general, I do think there's an argument for allowing entity references > to be passed through. There are lots of useful features in SGML that were thrown out to make XML. One can always argue that in some cases some particular feature should have been kept, but on balance I think one has to argue that the simplification was a success. You are asking for the return of SDATA entities. SDATA are just one such feature. They are occasionally useful but were presumably thought not worth the trouble they cause. In XML, an entity reference should be identical in semantics to the thing it is refering to. If that isn't the case you should encode it via some other mechanism. So in this case nbsp is unicode character 160 and _every_ XML application will treat these in the same way, so there is no need (so the argument goes) to construct a mechanism for chosing one form over the other in the output. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Using Entity References in XSL , David Carlisle | Thread | RE: Using Entity References in XSL , Kay Michael |
XSL Editor/ LotusXSL Updates, ssdhanoa | Date | RE: Using Entity References in XSL , Mike Brown |
Month |