Subject: Re: Transform xml to html
From: "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:10:08 -0000
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Fitzsimons" <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Transform xml to html
Joe Fawcett wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "andrew welch" On 3/10/06, Anthony
Ettinger <aettinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pre>? ouch.
Care to expand on that one... or is it too painful?
Yes please let us know what's so bad about it.
I know it's deprecated as well as XMP but what's the alternative and why
are they so bad?
Joe
You'll be pleased to hear that <pre> isn't deprecated, not even in XHTML
2.0:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_pre>
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
Thanks. I believe that they must have meant "not to be used as a way of
displaying code".
Next time I'll check myself :)
--
Joe
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
Wendell Piez - 10 Mar 2006 17:48:20 -0000
cknell - 10 Mar 2006 16:55:25 -0000
|
|
Cart
