RE: XML Tidy?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Reitzel, Charlie wrote:

> 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

a) it is.

The problem with XSLT on the output stage is that it still doesn't cover the
problems at the input stage. The users of this application are... uh, how do I
put this nicely... NOT the most computer-literate people in the world. While
they might (?)  be willing to learn a little HTML, it can't be reasonably
accepted that they will follow the W3 specs to the letter. That's where HTML
Tidy comes in. I intend to have a verification feature that uses HTML Tidy,
but I don't want to concern them with all the nitty-gritty of the specs
(i.e., header and body tags).

On top of all that, the users don't really need the pages to stand on their
own. Why would they want that when they're paying someone else to host the
compound pages? ;)

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

Attachments

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 10:20:34 UTC