[ANN] Kludgey workarounds for IE and Netscape

[John Cowan]

Paul Prescod wrote:

> Well, we could require the output to be PDF or PostScript or something,
> but XML seems the most logical choice. The important thing is to recognize
> that we do have to choose *something*.

Granted.  But is it so much to ask, to be able to produce well-formed
HTML as well?  After all, the XSL draft is speckled with references
to doing so, but well-formed and valid HTML just isn't XML -- even though
with one little allowance, it can become so.

Given the continuing importance of HTML or HTML+CSS as an output
format, this doesn't seem like such a large change.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)