Re: [xslt] xhtml output
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: xslt gnome org
- Subject: Re: [xslt] xhtml output
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:42:18 -0500
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:01:12PM +0100, Daniel Stodden wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 09:53, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:14:44PM +0100, Daniel Stodden wrote:
> > > hi.
> > >
> > > is anyone constructively working on an xhtml output provider for
> > > libxml2?
> > If your document has an XHTML1 recognized DOCTYPE the XML serializer will
> > do the Right Thing for versions starting from 2.4.28 (the latest).
> > Check test/xhtml1 in the source tree, and the result of xmllint test/xhtml1
> aha! :)
> though, i do not believe this should be default behavior.
It will be for anything with an XHTML1 DOCTYPE. That correspond to
normative and indicative prose from a W3C Recommendation, that's enough
for me to make it the default behaviour in that case.
> for xmllint, this may be one of the few cases left where another
> additional option might be ok. with xhtml+xml remaining as default.
> one idea may be to give (optional) arguments to the format parameter.
I don't want more bulky APIs at this point. You would need really
clear requirements to move me on this. Requests for extensions of the
serialization APIs not justified with precise example won't be
considered I'm afraid.
> otoh, this may mix up things which don't really belong together.
> personally, i'd like to have more control regarding indentation on the
> one and formatting on the other. unindent would actually be nice to have
> for some applications.
You're the first one to ever request it. If you want to remove
indentation walk the tree and remove the blank nodes using the API.
XML is very clear about it, any cdata, even blanks are significant.
If I am requested to add some for indenting, I do, but removing
I won't, far far too dangerous !
> (how sensitive are we regarding changes in argument semantics?)
against it in general.
> other ideas? counterarguments?
I don't want to increase the saving API unless there is very good reasons
> regarding xslt: so support for method=xhtml in xslt is in the works?
No. Checking an XHTML1 doctype is more reliable. This might be needed
for XHTML2 if it ever get supported but not urgent ATM. I may export the
currently private funtion to specifically save XHTML nodes in that case.
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
firstname.lastname@example.org | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
] [Thread Prev