Re: [xsl]l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.

Cart

XML Editor - Download a Free Trial >

See What's New >

Buy Now >

[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

Subject: Re: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal.
From: tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Trevor Nash)
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:04:10 GMT

>Considering the number of questions this raises,
>How many rules would be broken if &nbsp; were added
>to an XSLT engine? I.e. put in as part of the rec?
>
>Regards DaveP
If you mean that &nbsp; should be allowed in a stylesheet the same way
that &amp; is, then this would be a change to the XML spec.  Currently
the predefined characters are the bare minimum you need to encode all
characters without recourse to a DTD.  If you add &nbsp; to this set
why not &copy; &trade; &pound; ... 
Sorry Dave, you will just have to use bigger letters in the FAQ ;-)

Regards,
Trevor Nash
--
Traditional training & distance learning,
Consultancy by email

Melvaig Software Engineering Limited
voice:     +44 (0) 1445 771 271 
email:     tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread
RE: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" version 2 proposal. DPawson - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Michael Kay - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 04:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Trevor Nash - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:18:45 -0400 (EDT) <= Michael Beddow - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:18:58 -0400 (EDT) <Possible follow-ups> DPawson - Mon, 6 Aug 2001 06:01:22 -0400 (EDT)

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
RE: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Kay	Thread	Re: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Beddow
RE: l "& #xA0; vs & #160;" ver, Michael Kay	Date	Re: Generic template for sele, Trevor Nash
	Month

XML Editor - Download a 15 Day Free Trial Now >

See What's New in Stylus Studio >

Buy Stylus Studio - XML Editor - Now >