Re: SGML output from XSL?

Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> > "Borden, Jonathan" wrote:
> > >
> > > XSL can output HTML because HTML can be made well-formed.
> >
> > Not really. HTML's idea of a well-formed empty element is different from
> > XML/XSL's.
> 
> HTML Voyagers idea of a well formed empty element is *exactly the same*
> as XMLs, since the former is written in the latter.

True, but from context I know that Didier's message was not about Voyager.
It was about HTML-as-it-is-standardized. That's the HTML discussed in the
XSL specification.

> If people just want to spit out random < and > all over the place and
> not have any clue or any way of knowing whether the result is well
> formed or not, just use perl or awk or something.

That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing the possibility
(described in the XSL specification) of generating data that is
well-formed according to some syntax other than XML (i.e. legacy HTML,
comma delimited file, etc.).

"If an implementation wishes to use something in the result tree or
stylesheet to control the output of a non-XML representation of the result
tree, it should use the result namespace."

This seems reasonable to me.
-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey


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