Re: [xslt] xhtml output

[Daniel Stodden <stodden cs tum edu>]

hi.

On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 22:42, Daniel Veillard wrote:

>   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.

see below.

>   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 !

ok. yes, i'm aware of the issues.
but i'm also aware that it does not hurt as long as it's performed only
on explicit demand, in the same manner whitespace is currently added.
what i thought of was roughly equivalent to whitespace stripping in
xslt, and that is perfectly fine if happening on demand.

> > (how sensitive are we regarding changes in argument semantics?)
> 
>   against it in general.

ok. good.

>   I don't want to increase the saving API unless there is very good reasons
> for it.

ok.

> > 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.

my problem is: i don't see where the appendix C stuff is called
normative within the xhtml 1.0 specification. from my understanding it
is not.

basically, there are currently two totally different ways to serve
xhtml: text/html or xml. right? the current behavior of xmllint is to
enforce text/html-capable output. that does not hurt. however, it may
actually be unnecessary and _not_ desired. nor i see where it is
required.

daniel, i suppose you know much more about exact terms of w3c standards
than me, and i don't want to be at odds with you. consider this a
question, not an argument. if i'm wrong, just point me at the relevant
piece on w3c.org and i'm all happy. ok?

thanks,
daniel

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
 mailto:stodden@in.tum.de