Re: More XSL Discussion

Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> Michael Kay wrote:
> >
> > You're right, it doesn't make sense to create half an HTML element. It does
> > make sense, however, to generate one "output" HTML element as a result of
> > encountering a fairly complex input XML pattern.
> 
> This is a hard problem, but matching larger patterns may well be the
> best way to attack this. Still, one must weigh the cost of complicating
> the language with a new construct vs. using ad hoc coding tricks in the
> rare case that it comes up. The convention I would usually use is
[snip and etc.]

I may be sticking my nose where it's not welcome, and I'll
confess to not having read all the postings in detail, but, IMO,
I cannot see what's wrong with enforcing end tags for things
like lists.  HTML is, IMO, largely "glitzware" -- a lot of it just
enables one to make things look pretty (like postmodern 
architecture...).  SGML can provide an
enhancement of logical structure to our thinking.  

A list element, e.g., has a beginning and an end, as does a
paragraph, etc.

    <ul>
    <li>blah, blah</li>
    <li>more of the same</li>
    <li>something differnt</li>
    </ul>

looks pretty good (and very *clear*, compared to implied
end tags...) to me.

So now I'll remove my nose before it gets chopped off..

Best wishes to all!

\brad mccormick

-- 
   Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
   Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.

Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@xxxxxxxxxx
(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<!THINK [SGML]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/


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