Hmm yes - that is definitely food for thought. I had stripped off the
XML decl but wasn't thinking about output escaping. I'll have to go
back and use the named xsl:output after all.
Thanks, David and Michael
-Mike
now if only I can figure out how to reply to two messages at once...
Michael Kay wrote:
Thanks Martin and Andrew - these are both helpful
suggestions. As it turned out in my case, I was able to
output text while declaring it to be xml: I didn't think this
would work, but apparently at least Saxon will allow you to
output an xml document that contains only text: no elements,
which is just what I needed.
If you use disable-output-escaping="yes" and omit-xml-declaration="yes" (and
don't output any elements) then yes, the XML output method becomes very
close to the text output method. But it seems clearer to use method="text",
and there is nothing that stops you using different output methods for
different result documents. And relying on disable-output-escaping seems
very error prone - the first time you encounter data containing "<" or "&",
you're going to find that you forgot to put d-o-e on the relevant
xsl:value-of instruction.
Regards,
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--