- From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:35:49 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> In my humble opinion, I think those problems wouldn't happen if HTML > content was parsed as a document node directly by the http-request > step. The step can access the HTTP response context (including the > charset if any) and parse the HTML content directly into a document > node, e.g. following the same rules as in escape-markup. Or did I > miss something? I guess we could give HTML extra significance in p:http-request (similar to application/xml) and make the step behave as p:unescape-markup for HTML responses... But my personal feeling is that the less magic happens in p:http-request the better. I think that p:http-request should really only give you the 'raw' data that came with the response. If you want to treat the response data as HTML, you can apply p:unescape-markup to it. But if you want to treat the (HTML) response data as a sequence of bytes, you should still be able to do that. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 11:36:28 UTC