This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
- From: "Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla" <sevillar at team dot ph dot inter dot net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:48:46 +0800
- References: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700FE7A2B1@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 08:29:41AM +0100, DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
> Considering the number of questions this raises,
> How many rules would be broken if were added
> to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec?
>
Well, for one thing, is not an internally-defined XML entity
(the way & and < are). Conceivably you could create another
entity in a different dialect of XML where meant something
other than the Unicode character  , and if this were included in
the XSLT standard, there would be no way of creating this other entity
in a stylesheet, because it would then *always* produce  .
Oh, and by the way, XSLT *does* include , if your output method
is HTML that is. :)
--
Rafael R. Sevilla <sevillar@team.ph.inter.net> +63(2) 8177746 ext. 8311
Programmer, InterdotNet Philippines +63(917) 4458925
http://dido.engr.internet.org.ph/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5CDA17D8
PGP signature