On 26 October 2014 16:49, Alan Feuerbacher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 10:18 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/2014 9:16 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> >>>> Simon Geard wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 17:58 -0400, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if using this tool is the right way to test XML code. Do >>>>>> you LFS guys have any suggestions? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean "test" XML code? >>>>> >>>> >>>> About the only thing I know is xmllint. >>>> >>> >>> Ok, I see I have quite a bit more reading to do. :-) >>> >> >> Actually XML is fairly easy. It's just tags and attributes. The >> problem is that it's meaningless without a DTD (for example DocBook) and >> creating that is definitely non-trivial. >> >> If you have a published DTD, then you can use xml tools like xmllint and >> xsltproc to actually do something. There are other ways to parse xml >> too. In Qt, they have a class that will parse xml and you can do >> something with that. >> >> html is a subset of xml. >> >> xsl on the other hand is just weird. >> > > I'm gradually getting a better picture of all this by slogging through my > book and some W3C tutorials. A LOT of information here! > > Why do you say that XSL is wierd? I can see a good deal of arbitrariness > in the syntax, but not terribly much worse than all the rest. > > On the other hand, I'm more comfortable with the C-like syntax of php, > which I'm about to start reading more of. > > Many years ago I created a website http://cellularity.co.uk using as much xml as I could and still have it function as a proper website. What I liked about it was the fact that I could invent my own tags. It's still up, although hugely out of date. Have a look at the code. There's probably a lot wrong with it but it works. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
