RE: specifying html doctypes using xslt literal result

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Perhaps it isn't widely used because it is broken...?
> > Why is it in the spec?  It is also in the 2.0
> > spec...
> It's not very useful, but it isn't broken.
> It's in the 2.0 spec because it was in the 1.0 spec. You can't just take
> things out because you don't think they are very useful.

The May 2003 draft of the 2.0 spec has generating
XHTML as the prime example of using the Simplified
Module Syntax.

Since real life use of XHTML *requires* doctypes
and the Simplified Module Syntax is incompatible
with producing the required doctypes, the example
should be changed to one where doctypes are
unnecessary and the text should explicitly warn
about the doctype issue when using this syntax.

Alternatively, you could add a way for to specify
an output doctype in the simplified syntax (useful
for the 99% XHTML case).  How about giving
the obvious meaning to an xsl:doctype-public
attribute in the root element or just allowing the
top-level elements in the simplified syntax?

-Alex-

PS I would find the simplified syntax very useful
if it supported doctypes and template because then
I could draft my website front ends in XHTML,
write my back end as a web service that produces
XML with an xsl-stylesheet PI, and convert my
XHTML into XSLT by replacing the fake data in the
demo with data pulled from the referring XML.

___________________________________________________________________
S. Alexander Jacobson                      Check out my new blog!!!
1-212-787-1914 voice                       http://alexjacobson.com


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