- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:43:56 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-archive@w3.org
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 2008-09-03 10:10 +0200: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Oops. I didn't realize there was content after the signature. > > Is this commonly used? It's a rather unobvious use of a transform package. > > I know it's commonly used for serializing XML (actually, as far as I recall, > it's the recommended way to do it when you have to rely on what the JDK > includes). Once you know it's there and realize that it includes HTML > serialization as well, it's kind of obvious to use it for that as well. > > That being said, I don't recall whether it was recommended anywhere. And no, > I don't know how common it is. > > Is there a better alternative that doesn't require including additional > packages? That seems like a really good question. Henri, I'd think that after as much exploration as you've done around XML processing in Java, if there were some better way, you might know about it. Does anything come to mind? Or wait, I now note that qualification of "doesn't require including additional packages"... which I guess gets back to what Julian had mentioned earlier about developers not being at liberty to install additional packages into Java environments on shared hosts where they need to do their work. I guess I'd wonder how common that combination of circumstances really is (developers who want to generate HTML5 who are stuck working within limitations of that kind of environment). --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 11:44:33 UTC