- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:14:36 -0600
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
At 00:53 2002 02 21 +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Julian, > same way: > a) if we expect that every XHTML processor will handle XInclude, >it's easily an XHTML document and no change need be done. I imagine XInclude as a separate processor, but XHTML could define a specific processing model that includes a description of how to handle XInclude. > b) if we expect that there will be a special XInclude processor >preceding the XHTML processor, the document should be wrapped in >an element like xincl:includer. This element would be removed >(its contents being moved up one level) after processing by the >XInclude processor. I don't think you can require a wrapper element in general. That is certainly not any kind of requirement expected by Xinclude. > > There may be practical problems with nesting the tools >(XInclude, XSLT, encryptions etc. come to mind) but I think these >practical problems would ultimately be the result of the complex >design of the particular application. Yes, "nesting tools" is a complicated issue. We had an XML Processing Model workshop on this almost a year ago, and the issue is still open. paul
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 11:16:07 UTC