Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:38:59 -0400
Toby Speight wrote:
> We were discussing what HTML elements looked like in XML. AFAICS, to
> represent SCRIPT or STYLE in XML, we must use #PCDATA (since there's
> no CDATA in XML) and escape the content with entities or a marked
> section. That way, the parsed result is the same whether we parse the
> HTML-XML with an XML parser, or the HTML-4.0 with a HTML parser.
Yes, certainly. Going back to the original point, though, I was
trying to argue for a directly supported ability to write out
XSL-generated stuff as HTML, since the required hack for doing so
is much smaller than that required for Postscript, RTF, etc. etc.
Now that the distinction between "specifies its output as XML"
and "specifies XML as its output" (or whatever it is) has been
made, the point's moot for now: it will have to be revisited
when/if HTML becomes an XML subset.
> Of course, if we then rewrite it as HTML 4.0, we need to be aware that
> the output is CDATA (though there's no way in the general case to deal
> with ETAGO in the data).
In the general case, no, but workarounds exist for ECMAScript,
CSS, and VBScript.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
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:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)