[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: XML Dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:14:56 -0400
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Well, we could require the output to be PDF or PostScript or something,
> but XML seems the most logical choice. The important thing is to recognize
> that we do have to choose *something*.
Granted. But is it so much to ask, to be able to produce well-formed
HTML as well? After all, the XSL draft is speckled with references
to doing so, but well-formed and valid HTML just isn't XML -- even though
with one little allowance, it can become so.
Given the continuing importance of HTML or HTML+CSS as an output
format, this doesn't seem like such a large change.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
