Tres Seaver wrote at 2007-1-16 10:39 -0500:
> ...
>As you speculated, this is actually my preference, except that I don't
>see the need to in scenario D to recode the data and strip the prolog
>encoding attribute.  Why wouldn't we just use the XML template's own
>declared encoding to encode any data subsituted into the template?

Maybe, because an  XML template "T1" using encoding "e1"
uses a macro from template "T2" encoded with "e2"?

Or maybe, because in such a case some values passed into the macro
(e.g. the splots) cannot be encoded in "e2"?

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to