Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >On Monday 25 February 2002 15:26, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>. . . >>Now what are the uses cases where we don't want to write XML ? There >>may be cases where data is sent to the user or read from the request >>in a non-xml format (such as structured text like discussed earlier >>about Chaperon), but won't it be stored as XML ? >> > >Storing structured text as XML implies that the reverse transform (XML >to structured text) is available, to be able to rebuild the structured >text for later editing. > >But in this case, the user might find a slightly different text (due to >the conversion roundtrip) when re-editing it later on. IMHO this speaks >for storing structured text as is, which means being able to write >non-XML from Cocoon. > Mmmh... you may be right. In the case of structured text, the whole document can be contained in a single text node, and thus can be kept "as is" from the user request down to the file. Then we need only a generator for converting structured text to XML for publishing.
But in that case, I'm not sure we can actually use the SourceWritingTransformer since it expects to write an XML document, thus containing at least a root node enclosing a text node. >Another argument is being able to use a CVS backend for versioning >structured text documents stored in plain ASCII. AFAIK, this wouldn't >work as well today with XML. > Well, CVS doesn't really care of what's inside a versioned file ;) >I don't know which one of "XML to structured text transform" or "being >able to store non-XML data" is easier, but to work with editable >structured text one of them is needed. >I think "being able to store non-XML data" is more general. > Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
