xstandard xhtml editor

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Mar 3, 2005.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    http://xstandard.com/

    This has all the things that would make for a nice editor except for one
    thing.
    It won't install unless your machine supports unicode.
    On the website they show customizable tags such as
    $<custom="blahblah">text</custom>.
    Are customizable tags available in pure xhtml now and do they work in all
    browser or what?
    Richard, Mar 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:38:23 -0600, Richard wrote:

    > http://xstandard.com/
    >
    > This has all the things that would make for a nice editor except for one
    > thing.


    And a second... Something about having windows on your computer...

    Carolyn
    Carolyn Marenger, Mar 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Richard wrote:

    > Are customizable tags available in pure xhtml now


    No. But you could process your custom tags into real XHTML elements at the
    server side. Or you could use namespace prefixes, which are supported in
    XML-aware browsers, but will stop your site from validating.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Mar 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Richard

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Are customizable tags available in pure xhtml now

    >
    >
    > No. But you could process your custom tags into real XHTML elements at the
    > server side. Or you could use namespace prefixes, which are supported in
    > XML-aware browsers, but will stop your site from validating.
    >


    That's what XSLT is for :) Turns XML into... well, something else, like
    XHTML for example.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Mar 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
    <> wrote:

    >That's what XSLT is for :) Turns XML into... well, something else, like
    >XHTML for example.


    XSLT can't generate XHTML. It'll do HTML, or it'll do XML, but it
    just can't do that one in the middle, if you want to really work with
    the Appendix C-ness of things.

    (You can guess what has been ruining _my_ day today)
    Andy Dingley, Mar 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Richard

    Oli Filth Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>That's what XSLT is for :) Turns XML into... well, something else, like
    >>XHTML for example.

    >
    >
    > XSLT can't generate XHTML. It'll do HTML, or it'll do XML, but it
    > just can't do that one in the middle, if you want to really work with
    > the Appendix C-ness of things.
    >


    How come? Not that I've ever used XSLT, but isn't the idea that it maps
    an XML document to another type of document, which could be an XML
    document, which could be XHTML?

    XHTML isn't "in the middle" really, it's perfectly valid XML.

    --
    Oli
    Oli Filth, Mar 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    It was somewhere outside Barstow when Oli Filth <>
    wrote:

    >XHTML isn't "in the middle" really, it's perfectly valid XML.


    XHTML is perfectly valid XML, but not all well-formed XML (including
    some variants that XSLT likes to generate) is good-practice XHTML
    according to Appendix C
    --
    Smert' spamionam
    Andy Dingley, Mar 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Richard

    Lachlan Hunt Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > It was somewhere outside Barstow when Oli Filth <>
    > wrote:
    >>XHTML isn't "in the middle" really, it's perfectly valid XML.

    >
    > XHTML is perfectly valid XML, but not all well-formed XML
    > (including some variants that XSLT likes to generate)
    > is good-practice XHTML according to Appendix C


    That doesn't matter. Appendix C only applies when the document is being
    served as text/html. If XSLT is doing the conversion, it's just as easy
    to produce HTML 4.01 as text/html as it is to produce XHTML 1.x as
    application/xhtml+xml, unless you have a requirement to use XML-only
    features within the output (eg. Mixed namespaces, etc).

    --
    Lachlan Hunt
    http://lachy.id.au/
    http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
    http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
    Lachlan Hunt, Mar 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    It was somewhere outside Barstow when Lachlan Hunt
    <> wrote:

    >If XSLT is doing the conversion, it's just as easy
    >to produce HTML 4.01


    But I don't _want_ HTML, I want XHTML.

    With hand-edit I can provide Appendix C-compliant XHTML that's both
    usable on the web and is XML. I need to get XSLT to do this, which is
    problematic.

    The xsl:eek:utput method attribute is already a hack, with the html
    value. I just wish XSLT processors also supported a similar hack for
    Appendix C XHTML.
    Andy Dingley, Mar 4, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stylus Studio
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    640
    Stylus Studio
    Aug 3, 2004
  2. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    867
  3. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    762
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  4. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,118
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
  5. xhtml champs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    xhtml champs
    Aug 1, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page