xstandard xhtml editor

R

Richard

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?
 
T

Toby Inkster

Richard said:
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.
 
S

SpaceGirl

Toby said:
Richard wrote:




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 #
 
A

Andy Dingley

It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
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)
 
O

Oli Filth

Andy said:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl



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.
 
A

Andy Dingley

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
 
L

Lachlan Hunt

Andy said:
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).
 
A

Andy Dingley

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Lachlan Hunt
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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top