This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
- From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam at mbeddow dot net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:19:08 +0100
- References: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700FE7A2B1@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Monday, August 06, 2001 8:29 AM
DPawson wrote:
> Considering the number of questions this raises,
> How many rules would be broken if were added
> to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec?
I'm not clear as to what this would solve. To me, it looks as though
most of the problems stem from misunderstandings about how XML parsers
handle character data, and the stages in the transformation process at
which parsing and serialisation occur. People's problems in this area
won't go away until they grasp what's at stake there, and mandating that
XSLT processors when serialising into HTML must always represent
NO-BREAK SPACE as would surely be muffling the symptoms instead
of curing the ill?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beddow http://www.mbeddow.net/
XML and the Humanities page: http://xml.lexilog.org.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list