Subject: Re: feature request From: "Rick Geimer" <Rick.Geimer@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:12:37 -0700 |
Rick Geimer wrote: > > Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > > > Its a fair point, but I don't think its new. The X* specs were created > > in public, by "users", not implementors (per se), and they almost all > > seemed to have decided that entities should not survive a parse. Take > > them to task, but take them on at a higher level than XSLT, imho. > > But what about unparsed entities? They never get parsed, so why don't > they survive? Sorry, this was poorly worded. I should have said, why can't they be preserved. Of course they can be accessed via the unparsed-entity-uri function, but I have no easy way to recreate them in the output document without a hack like disable output escaping. In my opinion, this makes XSLT poorly suited for near-identity XML transformations. Rick Geimer National Semiconductor rick.geimer@xxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: feature request, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: feature request, David Carlisle |
Re: Which is correct, xt or SAXON?, David Carlisle | Date | Re: Web Front Page using XSLT, Juergen Hermann |
Month |