RE: xslt20 newest version

Thanks for the comment. I think that this is a simple typo: the example has
been copied unchanged from the HTML section, and should have been changed
for XHTML to:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=EUC-JP"/>

I will treat this as an editorial correction.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Frank Mabry [mailto:fmabry@hvc.rr.com] 
> Sent: 17 November 2002 00:40
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: xslt20 newest version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From section "20.2 XHTML Output Method"
> 
> The following is included in the newest version of xslt20:
> 
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=EUC-JP">
> 
>  I checked in the definition of XHTML and found no specific 
> indication 
> that an "ill" formed "meta" element was a requirement. There 
> are several 
> indirect comments that cite the importance of XHTML being 
> valid XML. I 
> think XSLT20 should include a requirement that the "meta" 
> element (and 
> for that matter all the elements produced by a transform 
> interpreter in 
> XHTML output mode) be rendered in a well formed manner. MS seems to 
> consistently ignore this aspect of the XHTML definition in their 
> products. I hope that the eventual general recommendation for 
> XSLT will 
> insist that output produced in XHTML mode be well formed XML.
>  
>  I can think of a lot of very good reasons to include this 
> requirement. 
> I can't think of any "good" reason to allow ill formed XML output. 
> 
> Just my two cents worth ... your mileage may vary. 
>  Frank  
> 
>  Dr. Frank Mabry
>  Dept. of EE&CS
>  U.S. Military Academy
>  West Point, New York, 10996
>  Work Phone: 845-938-2960
>  work email: df6954@exmail.usma.edu
>  home email: fmabry@hvc.rr.com
>  "The great use of life is to spend it for something that 
> will outlast it."
>  - William James  
>

Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 15:14:20 UTC