On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:19, Torsten Knodt wrote: > On Tuesday 03 June 2003 21:46, Bruno Dumon wrote: > > BD> yeah yeah, I agree with that, and for that purpose the tidyserializer is > BD> very valuable. I was only wondering if there were any blocking bugs in > BD> the normal htmlserializer that make it impossible to generate valid html > BD> (next to the namespace problem). > > No real blocking. For most problems, there is a simple workaround. > > BD> (I'll look into applying the tidyserializer.) > > When you or someone else wants to apply it, I'll provide xdocs for it, > including all supported parameter by tidy.
great. > > BD> TK> You have to validate the output to see if it's valid. > BD> Is there any other way to validate the output then by validating it? > > Was written bad. You have to validate the output with an external program to > see if it is valid. That's what I meat. ok. > > BD> If "the job" means that Xalan should validate the serialized xml against > BD> the DTD it references, then I think it's a pretty save bet to say that > BD> will never ever happen. > > I hope it removes not allowed and not needed namespaces. but that is quite a heavy process if only for aesthetic purposes. > For deciding what > namespaces are allowed, it has to do validation. true, but only if you are still living in the DTD-area. And since in DTD's you shouldn't be using namespaces in the first place, maybe it is easier to simply make a transformer which drops all namespaces? -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
