- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:49:13 +0200
- To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Thomas Broyer wrote: >> 2) For the others, it depends where they transform to. For instance, >> Transformix in Mozilla doesn't understand it, because it directly builds a >> DOM (I think). > > So it merely depends on how the DOM will be "interpreted", and in this > case I guess as XML (or maybe XHTML, as IIRC Mozilla looks at the > namespace of the root element) ? Mozilla certainly understands HTML (elements in the empty namespace) as well. > ... >> 4) And, again, it's not an XSLT-only problem. javax.xml.transform is the >> most reliable way included in the JDK to produce HTML, and is based on the >> XSLT serializers. The same situation could apply to other platforms. > > FYI it's the case on .NET with XmlWriter, but a 3rd party lib could > very well provide its own XmlWriter to output HTML5 or whatever (it's > actually on my todolist for Twintsam [1]) > ... Thanks for the info. So, yes, all this *can* be worked around by using alternative implementations. My question remains: is it a good idea to make it harder to generate HTML5 as it needs to be? BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 09:49:57 UTC