RE: disable-output-escaping

Well as you are doing it client-side why not put you xml in an island
and just put an xpath to the node in a formfield attribute then
post the island xml back to the server instead of the form
<XML id="XMLDATA">
<myform>
  <formfield1 value="" />
</myform>
</XML>
<form name="myform">
	<input type="text" name="formfield1"
onchange="updateXML('/myform/formfield1/@value', this)" value="somevalue" />
	<input type="button" onclick="mySubmit()" />
</form>
<script>
function updateXML(path , obj){
XMLDATA.documentElement.selectSingleNode(path).nodeValue = obj.value;
}
</script>

You could do
<input type="text" name="formfield1" onchange="updateXML(this)"
path="/myform/formfield1/@value" value="somevalue" />
etc.

Ciao Chris

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Evan Lenz
>Sent: 02 August 2000 02:49
>To: XSL-List@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: disable-output-escaping
>
>
>
>Okay, I was operating under some wrong assumptions.  It's amazing how
>quickly these layers of character escaping can get one confused.  It turns
>out I don't need to use disable-output-escaping at all.  I just need to
>learn to trust the processor :)  Inserting character entities in an
>attribute value is just fine, and where those characters don't need to be
>escaped in the output (but do in the input), they won't be.  For example, a
>< needs to be escaped in character content, but not in an attribute value.
>Thus, I use &lt; in the stylesheet (as a child of xsl:attribute) and it is
>outputted as a literal < in the output attribute value, because it doesn't
>need to be escaped in that context.  Well, in the process, I learned a
>little about the quirks of SAXON vs. xt.
>
>What I'm realizing--and this may be a more interesting issue--is that in
>order to write a generic, reusable template rule that will do this escaping
>for me, I need to be able to treat the XML to be escaped as a node-set.  So
>if I'm getting that node-set directly from the source tree, I'm
>fine without
>any extension functions.  But where I want to first construct an arbitrary
>tree (in a variable) and then escape it, I'm out of luck without the use of
>a node-set() function.  So, in order to implement what I want to do here
>without invoking an extension function, I have to hard-code it to the
>various template rules involved, without being able to construct
>the tree in
>its own step before escaping.  The resulting implementation isn't very
>reusable.
>
>Evan Lenz
>elenz@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


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