This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSL, XT, and ruined well-formed HTML
Steve Tinney wrote:
> If this is really, absolutely necessary, you could hack the text()
> template to detect 0xa0 and replace it with . The input to the
> next phase of XML processing you mentioned might not then be valid,
> though. You might get somewhere by investigating the output encoding,
> but I'm not familiar enough with XT to say these days. I've switched
> irrevocably to Saxon; you might look at that instead.
>
Right, but I don't want it to work on a browser. I want it to be parseable
again as XML.
As for what you're saying as far as Saxon goes... I would assume that that
would have the same problems that I'm complaining about (whether or not I
want it to behave as the spec recommends :-). Unless of course, Saxon would
support the iso-8859-1 (or whatever) spec that I have read seems to preserve
the  's as I want them preserved.
Thanks for your response. I'll be looking into saxon.
Duke
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list