Re: writing entity references.

   From: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:24:09 -0000 
   Content-Type: text/plain;
	   charset="x-user-defined"
   Sender: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Precedence: bulk
   Reply-To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   Paul P wrote:


   If we really need entity references in the output (doubtful)
   <snip>


   James is offering us 'processing' of the output tree, via filter.
   If we are to consistently manage the transformation of,
   for example, a full set of European characters, then surely 
   entities are the way to go? If the filter program could
   get one of any number of inputs, it would be confusing,
   to say the least, dangerous at worst.

   Are Paul and I using the same interpretation of 'output'?
   I.e. the result of using an XSL transformation?

   regards, DaveP


    XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list



I don't follow. What do you mean by `any number of inputs'.
the European characters will currently appear in the output
as character data (ie appropriate unicode slots). How would
having the extra option of having eacute appear as the sequence
of characters `&eacute;' help with the problem that you are
refering to above. I suspect that I just don't understand
what problem it is that you are trying to solve.

For the question that I originally asked on this list I had the special
reason to want to write entity references because I expect that the
entity definitions will _change_ at some point in the future, if the
characters get accepted by unicode. This is a rather odd situation.
For something standard like the Unicode European Character set,
what is wrong with writing out the characters as themselves,
why would you want to write them as entity references?

David


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list