On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 17:57, Torsten Knodt wrote: > > When TidySerializer would be in cocoon, more people would try it. And perhaps > there will be someone who cleans it up and adds SAX and DOM support.
That's right. > Also > perhaps someone integrates it into xalan. > And for the namespace problem. Tidy hides it only for (X)HTML. It doesn't hide > it for WML, where you have the same. Everywhere where you have a DTD for the > output and using different namespaces during creation, you can have the > problem. > We have a current problem, that cocoon is not useable in many cases, because > it's nearly impossible to create valid (x)html. And again I'm wondering why? Of the tree reasons given earlier: AC> 1) As a fix for the "the namespace problem" AC> 2) When human-readable HTML output is needed AC> 3) To validate the output to a dtd only number 1 really causes problems, the others are merely conveniences. Those are important too, but don't make it "impossible to create valid (x)html". > With TidySerializer we would > have a temporary inofficial solution. There is also HTMLGenerator using jtidy > and noone says, we wait for the web pages to have valid (X)HTML. While I do find this a false comparison (we don't control webpages, but we do control what we generate in our pipelines), please understand that I'm not opposed to a tidyserializer. I'm just figuring out why I would use it. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
