Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > XML > Re: Emitting   to HTML Output

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Emitting   to HTML Output

 
 
Micah Cowan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2003
Peter C. Chapin <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>
> > > Well, suppose the publishing industry decided that, for whatever reason,
> > > they wanted to use a different symbol for copyright. Imagine a symbol
> > > resembling "-c-" instead of "(c)".

> >
> > There is absolutely no reason why &#xA9; couldn't be used for that as
> > well: Unicode (in general) does not specify how the glyph should look,
> > it only decrees that U+00A9 corresponds to a character with the
> > semantic of representing "a copyright symbol", whatever that may
> > mean.

>
> I understand that. However, in the event of a character changing its
> traditional glyph it seems more likely to me that a new code point would
> be allocated. Some documents might specifically want to continue using
> the old form of the character for historical or compatibility reasons.
> Yet other documents would, one assumes, want to use the new version of
> the character instead.


That's what fonts are for: Unicode specifically tries to avoid this.

> Thus both glyphs would probably have to be
> available.


Not unless somewhere in the book, the author specifically wanted to
contrast the two glyphs (as you are now), in which case a font change
would still be more appropriate.

<snip>

> > In general, yes; but in the case of the HTML character entities, not
> > really. They serve more as a mnemonic than anything else: I doubt very
> > much that ISO/W3C/Mr. Berners-Lee had any intentions of changing these
> > once released; otherwise, they'd have said so.

>
> Perhaps, but what of other markups besides HTML? I could imagine a DTD
> author defining entities specifically to hide their representations so
> that later changes to the spec could be made without requiring documents
> to be edited. It seems like a powerful and useful feature of entities in
> general and one that the community should endeavor to support.


Absolutely.

<snip>

> In a different post Richard Tobin pointed out that output escaping only
> makes sense when one is outputing a document and not when one is acting
> directly on the output tree. However, I dispute that. For example, Xalan
> must internally mark in the tree somehow which text regions are to be
> free of escaping when it outputs the final document.


In regards to the node tree defined in the XSLT spec, Mr. Tobin is
correct. How Xalan's tree differs from that tree is inconsequential.

-Micah
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ATLAS and controls emitting Javascript julia.hayward@cadcorp.com ASP .Net 0 01-05-2007 03:57 PM
Client side validators not emitting John Livermore ASP .Net 1 07-18-2003 09:03 PM
Re: Emitting &nbsp; to HTML Output Klaus Johannes Rusch XML 5 06-27-2003 09:02 AM
Re: Emitting &nbsp; to HTML Output Andy Jefferies XML 0 06-25-2003 02:11 PM
Re: minidom toxml() not emitting attribute namespace qualifier Paul Boddie Python 0 06-24-2003 09:44 AM



Advertisments