RE: XML Tidy?

How about we just go w/ a)?  Because, in practice, it's much easier to add a
<body> (or any other) wrapper than it is to remove it.  If removed, one
doesn't need XSLT (which is slow at run-time) to do a lot of things.
Regular, old server side includes will do the trick.

On the flip side, since you are using XSLT, you don't need the new option at
all.  What's wrong w/ select="html/body" at the output stage?  All you need
to do is have Tidy emit well-formed xhtml.  

Skip the wrapper on input and let tidy do it's thing.  Rather than supress
the "no title" warning, have users submit full documents (<html>...</html>)
and just use XSLT to pull out the <body> contents.  This way, documents can
stand on their own as well.

Charlie


-----Original Message-----
From: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [mailto:ignacio@openservices.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 6:13 PM
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Subject: RE: XML Tidy?


On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Reitzel, Charlie wrote:
> Looks good.  Looks like the pretty printer theory worked
> out ok.  I put this into the "Feature request" tracker on
> the SourceForge project (and attached your diff), so it's
> in the queue.
>
> For all interested parties, you can view the feature list
> Terry has culled from this mailing list at
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?group_id=27659&atid=390966
>
> The more feedback we get about these items, the better
> (including priority, sanity checking, potential conflicts,
> refinements, "You want it to do what?", etc. etc.).
>
> Question: given the input
> -- INPUT --
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>Foo!</title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <p>Bar!</p>
> </body>
> </html>
> ------------
>
> Do you want
> -- OUTPUT A --
> <p>Bar!</p>
> --------------
>
> or b)
> -- OUTPUT B --
> <body>
> <p>Bar!</p>
> </body>
> --------------
>
> Your diffs look like you want b).  If so, why?  I'd think
> you'd want to drop the <body> itself so that the document
> contents, for example, could be dropped into a cell in a
> layout table.
>
> Charlie

In all actuality, it doesn't matter to me whether a) or b) happens. I use
XSLT in the front end so it's all good. However, I do believe that having
the ability to omit or even rename the body tag is a good feature. I'll
start work
on it tonight.

How does this sound:

A new configuration option, "body-tag", a string that can have either "OMIT"
or the actual tag you want to output in place of <body> and </body>. This
feature will only be available when "body-only" is active (because that's
probably the only time it would make sense).

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio@openservices.net>

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 18:43:24 UTC