Re: More XSL Discussion

Jeremie Miller wrote:
> 
> ==> Eliminating the style rules and replacing them with a <style></style>
> container within any rule?  If containers are used within rules, this just
> seems like a more appropriate place to do this, instead of duplicating a
> whole seperate rule structure just for applying style characteristics to
> elements.

A style rule is very different semantically, and should probably be
quite different syntactically.
 
> ==> Attributes on the containers within a rule.  The issue so far is that
> having the attributes determine the format/type of content within the
> continer isn't valid XML.  Why not use CDATA as the content type for the
> containers? Even though I know it is kind of a kludge and defeats the
> purpose, I'd like to see some good reasoning on wether this would be
> plausable.

No. XML does not have CDATA declared element content.
 
> Even if it is determined that having the containers be CDATA wouldn't
> work, then why not have various containers?  Maybe instead of:
>   <style format="xml"><color>red</color></style>
> and
>   <style format="css">color:red;</style>
> You could just have:
>   <style><color>red</color></style>
> and
>   <css>color:red;</css>

This would work, I guess, but the convention in both HTML and other
forms of SGML is to use attributes to express notations.
 
> ==> A Raw HTML container.  Either:
>   <action format="html">RAW HTML</action>

This won't fly. There is no way to express it in XML, and besides we
probably want to encourage people to move to well-formed HTML.

Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

[Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"]
Annie: "It's so clean down here."
Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make 
        it into television shows."


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list