[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...
Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...|
From: "Martinez, Brian" <brian.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:36:57 -0600
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:45 AM
> Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...
> > I don't understand. I'm it states that all element's in
> the xhtml dtd
> > that are not declared as empty should have a closing tag.
> Those that
> > are declared as empty may or may not have a closing tag (in
> other words
> > may or may not use the empty element syntax).
> Nope. It says:
> "Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an
> end tag or can
> use empty element shorthand (see Empty Elements)."
But <div/>, which is the element Andrew specifically referred to, is *not*
defined as EMPTY in the DTD. It should not be written minimized.
> > > Because it doesn't matter for XML?
> > Nor do a lot of features, but they are here and being used everyday.
> > Saying 'it doesn't matter for xml' is being very short sited.
> But after all you *are* using XSLT's XML output method. An in XML, it
> doesn't matter. An application that claims compliance to the
> XML spec (such
> as an XHTML browser) MUST accept both notations.
XSLT 1.0 processors don't do XHTML. You can have XML (with some
inappropriate element minimizations) or HTML (which is not well-formed).
This is a limitation of the current spec which XSLT 2.0 should correct,
since it will allow for XHTML output.
> > > > It wouldn't break anyone's output, it would merely help 1000's
> > > > much more) of xslt'ers. I simply cannot understand
> anyone arguing
> > > > against the addition of this. Even the xml spec states that its
> > > > optional...
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#sec-starttags).
> > >
> > > It would help for people that try to feed XHTML into
> non-XHTML compliant
> > > browsers. Why do you try this in the first place?
> > I give up....
> Again: it's known that IE does not support XHTML. Why don't
> you simply serve
> HTML instead?
The W3 site serves conformant XHTML. IE has no trouble with it, at least my
version (5.5). An XSLT 1.0 processor is not the right tool to use if you
want fully-conformant XHTML.
| brian martinez brian.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| lead gui programmer 303.357.3548 |
| cheap tickets, part of trip network fax 303.357.3380 |
| 6560 greenwood plaza blvd., suite 400 englewood, co 80111 |
| cendant travel distribution services http://www.cheaptickets.com/ |
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
David Carlisle - Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:20:29 +0100
David Carlisle - Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:28:29 +0100
Martinez, Brian - Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:36:57 -0600 <=
Andrew Welch - Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:14:11 +0100