[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> The stylesheet is named right in the input document!
> I don't want to do that.
That's the most portable way to do client side transforms.
The alternative is to serve an html page that uses javascript to load
the source XML document and stylesheets as required. This is obviously
more expressive as you can chain multiple transforms, and/or set
stylesheet parameters. The sarissa javascript library may help in hiding
some of the differences bewtween APIs to the various client side XSLT
engines.
The other alternative (still probably the most popular, even though it
negates much of the reason for developing XML as "SGML online") is to do
the transform at the server side and serve the generated HTML rather
than the XML.
> It seems natural to me that the URL for an XML application should
> point at the xsl, not the xml -- which is meaningless to the browser.
the xml-stylesheet model is most natural if you consider a "traditional"
document publishing situation. You have one stylesheet that does (say)
docbook to html transforms) and any number of articles written in
docbook XML. By adding the xml-stylesheet PI to the _articles_ they
automatically display in a browser if you serve them on the web or
double click on them in a file browser, etc.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
|
