Thank you for your feedback. * Support for <?xml-stylesheet?> will *not* be dropped from XXE V3.
* In XXE, everything specified in the document has priority over what is specified in configuration files. This is true for DTDs, W3C XML Schemas and CSS style sheets. That's why ``use stylesheets specified in the configuration files, if there are any; otherwise, use the stylesheets in the PI's'' is not the policy we have chosen to implement. * Sorry but we do not agree with this sentence. --- I haven't found *one* where using the pre-existing stylesheet wasn't better than not using any at all. --- We find that XXE often looks *ridiculous* when used with CSS style sheets not adapted to its limitations. * The initial value of CSS property "display" is "inline" and not "block" and this property is not inherited. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#display-prop. Thus, to our knowledge, the behavior of XXE is correct. May be not very smart, but correct. David Mundie wrote: > I have just browsed through the whole xmleditor-support archive to see > what others have said about XXE support for xml-stylesheet PI's. I > haven't seen anyone propose what is to me the obvious, no-brainer > solution, so I've decided to propose it here. > > It seems clear to me that the rule should be: use stylesheets specified > in the configuration files, if there are any; otherwise, use the > stylesheets in the PI's. > > Note that this is not achievable with the current system. The closest > one can come is to manually toggle the "Ignore xml-stylesheet PI" bit > depending on whether or not the document being edited has a > configuration file or not. > > The only real issue here is what XXE should do if there is no stylesheet > specified in a configuration file. Surely using the one in the PI is > preferable to using none at all. > > Note that using a catalog, though doubtless a fine idea, does not solve > this problem. > > Back in October, Hussein wrote: > >> I didn't want to be arrogant. I know that there are plenty of other XML >> softwares which understand <?xml-stylesheet?>. I meant: why is the >> xml-stylesheet processing instruction still useful *in the case of XXE*, >> when you have configuration files? > > > That's not the point. The point is that this is not an all-or-nothing > situation. Real users will always have a mixture of documents with > configuration files and documents without them. Having to toggle that > global preference bit when moving from one class of documents to the > other is a pain. > >> Another question is: has anybody succeeded in using the same CSS style >> sheet for XXE and for another <?xml-stylesheet?>-enabled XML software? >> In such case, no longer supporting <?xml-stylesheet?> in XXE V3 would be >> an error. > > > Emphatically, yes! I only discovered XMLEditor three days ago, but am > absolutely in love with it. It's the product I've dreamed of for years. > I have spent the last three days going through all my accumulated XML > documents to see how well XXE handles them. In most cases I have been > able to use my existing CSS stylesheets with few problems. Lack of > support for font-family is far and away the most common problem, but > simply ignoring the warnings works fine. The problem that has required > the most amount of effort is the way XXE requires all levels of elements > to have "display: block" set on them if the lowest level is a block (I'm > not sure whether this is correct behavior with respect to the > recommendation, but it's certainly not the way the browsers behave). The > only changes I've made that would not work in the browsers is content > replacement for images. > > But the important point is that in all those documents, I haven't found > *one* where using the pre-existing stylesheet wasn't better than not > using any at all. I think dropping support for <?xml-stylesheet?> would > be a big mistake.
