This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Using Transforms and #include file
- To: "'xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: [xsl] Using Transforms and #include file
- From: "Hellstern, Manny" <manny dot hellstern at mustangeng dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:58:30 -0600
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Peter:
Looks like you and David are in agreement. Thanks for the help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@stjude.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:39 AM
To: 'xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com'
Subject: RE: [xsl] Using Transforms and #include file
> 1. My site has a lot of functionality all in one page because of the
> ".innerHTML" technique I'm using. I only need specific scripts for
specific
> content so I didn't want to mass load all script.
Fair enough. However, breaking the individual scripts into individual files
will still work and won't cost you anything.
> 2. When I use the ".innerHTML" method I notice that eventhough you can see
> the representation with the browser, if you try to "viewsource" nothing
> shows up. I'm thinking that If I output my script in the same manner I
don't
> have to bare my "script soul" to the world.
Well I would guess that should be true either way? However, given the
rather random behavior of IE at such times I have no real idea if that would
be true.
I suspect you could read in the entire JS file as a well formed XML fragment
using document() by wrapping it in a CDATA. Start with a simple test and go
from there. That will also tell you whether it is worth going to all the
effort to go all the way...
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list