Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> At 17:05 8-4-2002, Christopher H. Laco shared with all of us:
>
>> 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?
[...]
>>
>> #2. In XHTML <p></p> != <p />, while in XML it does, if for no other
>> reason than from a rendering standpoint.
No, they're equivalent in both. They're _not_ equivalent for an HTML
browser attempting to digest XHTML, however. And _that_ is why
the XSLT 2.0 Requirements draft says:
"Could support XHTML output method"
but doesn't seem to commit to it! --- By the time XSLT 2.0 comes out,
the issue may be moot!
> Yes, and because it's the core reason for creating the XHTML-spec:
> To create Well-formed XML, that is backwards compatible, with existing
> user-agents.
Hmm, I don't see that anywhere in the spec, although it does say:
"XHTML documents can be written to to operate as well or better
than they did before in existing HTML 4-conforming user agents
as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user agents."
(note "can be written").
I certainly agree that a method="xhtml" would be useful to some people,
but I think it is clear that expecting either method = "xml" or "html"
to do it would be wrong.
If method="html" produces "<br />" what method would I use if I want
(sgml) html?
If method="xml" produces "<br />" sometimes and "<p></p>" other times,
what method would I use to get normal xml? (Granted the result would
be valid, but weird!)
Would you really expect the xml/xslt chain to remember exactly how
each element were originally written? (if it were explicitly written:
What would <xsl:element> produce?)
So it doesn't seem right to complain about a given transformer not
reading your mind; but perhaps it's fair to request the implementor
to jump the gun and add method="xhtml"?
Incidentally, I have to point out how bizarre the historical accident
of "<br />" is. If you were writing an html parser, would you
_intentionally_ set out to recognize that "<br />" means "<br>", but
not recognize "<br/>" ? They're _both_ wrong, as HTML!
I'm surprized that it happened in enough browsers (2?) to be even
worth mentioning in the spec!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
