On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:25:49PM +0200, Hussein Shafie 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?
I think simply and practically, when one is dealing with styles targeted
towards a particular document, using this processing instruction is
easier (on both the developer/guru and the end user) than the XXE
configuration files. For example (this is why I found myself using the
xml-stylesheet processing instruction recently), I had a large DocBook
file that my group wanted to look a particular way. To me, it didn't
make sense to craft a configuration for only this document, so I turned
to the xml-stylesheet processing instruction to supply a simple
augmentation of the XXE core styles.
There certainly may be other use-cases, although in general I much
prefer XXE's way of inspecting a document's structure and applying an
appropriate configuration. I'm investigating techniques for obtaining
similar behavior in other environments.
> 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.
This is where my XML catalog request comes into play. I invision being
able to specify a global URI for a particular stylesheet and having
application specific resolution of that stylesheet's URI. One possible
implementation of such a resolution is through XML catalogs, which are
great for this sort of task and which XXE has a history of supporting.
Take care,
John L. Clark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.xmlmind.com/pipermail/xmleditor-support/attachments/20041008/899a2e81/attachment.sig
