On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:13AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote: > Well, let me play devil's advocate then.... > > If XHTML is valid XML via method="xml". why on earth is method="xhtml" added > to the 2.0 working draft?
XML is a syntax, XHMTL a dialect ... ? > Two reasons I can think of.. > #1. text/xml vs. text/html content-type. > Can be fixed vy using media-type="text/html", assuming the processor uses > it Content-type is something the server has to deal with, what has this to do with the transformation of the document? > #2. In XHTML <p></p> != <p />, while in XML it does, if for no other reason > than from a rendering standpoint. Where do the specs say that? They suggest doing that to keep old, non-xml aware browser happy. Hence my comment on feeding things to beasts that never where meant to be fed with such stuff :-) > Which is my point, When I put in <p></p>, I want exactly that returned to > me. > Yes, you can put in there, yes you can CDATA it, but the more > working around the system I have to do to output XHTML is more time that the > goodness of XML/XSL/XSLT is lost. I guess the point of dispute here is: for you a transformer is a black box where all parts of the transformation process know of each other. That's most often not the case. LibXSLT (the one library i happen to know the internals) deals with allready parsed documents. BTW, many of my applications build style- sheet dynamically 'in code', there never is '<p></p>' or '<p/>', only xmlNewNode(HTMLNS, (xmlChar *) "p") ... Ralf Mattes > For that matter, I believe method="xml" strips ending XHTML slash spaces > <br /> turns into <br/> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Le grande pinguin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:41 AM > > To: Christopher H. Laco > > Cc: 'Tod Harter'; 'AxKit List' > > Subject: Re: MSIE Render; Content-Type Questions > > > > > <snip] > > > It doesn't fit 'html', but why not 'xml' methods. AFAIK xhtml > > is perfectly > > valid xml. I get the impression that you want/need to feed > > xhtml to non- > > xml aware browsers by faking something digestable to those > > broken implementions > > (the 'ol <br /> hack :-) Curse on the browser industry, not > > the XSLT implementors. > > You ask them to do the same mistake again (producing > > non-standard conforming output). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
