> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:56:54 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Mike Brown <mike@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re:  xslt readability/maintainability

[...]

> You might be running into similar situations with your colleagues' patches,
> where the lexical flexibility of XML makes the patches semantically correct
> but written completely differently. While <foo></foo> vs <foo/>, attribute
> order, and attribute value quoting differences are fairly tolerable when they
> happen, a patch that is full of whitespace changes can be annoying and is
> actively discouraged (through admonishment of the offending party, mainly),
> although rarely is it a real disaster. The only real danger, IMHO, lies in
> encoding differences; you don't want a utf-8 encoded patch going into an
> iso-8859-1 file.

If the code is checked manually it is reasonable convert all 
<foo></foo> to <foo />, order all attributes in the same way (for 
instance by name) and reformat whitespaces with an automatical tool.

-- 
Vit(aly B.) Rudovich          mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    
           http://www.VRudovich.com

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