Re: More XSL Discussion

>A style rule is very different semantically, and should probably be
>quite different syntactically.


I understand what you mean about the differences, but how would this affect
a style's placement either as a seperate rule or as another container within
a normal rule?

It's just that long ago after my first read through the proposal, I didn't
understand the reason for two completly seperate constructs, one for
applying flow objects to and reordering elements, and one for applying
styles, when they both apply to the same elements.

>
>No. XML does not have CDATA declared element content.


*blush*, sorry, I don't know why I thought it did...

>
>This would work, I guess, but the convention in both HTML and other
>forms of SGML is to use attributes to express notations.


But having seperate containers(if containers are used within rules) seems to
get the job done.  I'm not saying that there should be a <css></css>
container, but there might be other good reasons to use other containers,
maybe using <xll></xll> instead of a pattern(I'm not familiar with XLL so I
don't know if that would work?).

>
>This won't fly. There is no way to express it in XML, and besides we
>probably want to encourage people to move to well-formed HTML.


Right, I didn't realize you couldn't use CDATA, so it's basically
impossible.

Is there a difference between "well-formed HTML" and "HTML Core Flow
Objects"?


Jeremie Miller
jer@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.jeremie.com/



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