<br/> and xslt

[loveNUNO]

I'am using xt to convert my xml with an xsl to html.
When i use <br /> in my xsl document in turns into <br> in the html.
So, How am I get <br/> TAG in output(html) like xhtml?

[Nick Kew]

In article <pa************ *************** *@hotmail.com>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Oliver M. Haynold" <ol*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong,
Consider yourself corrected.
but HTML 4.01 has a SHORTTAG YES clause in its
SGML Declaration.
Yes. That's a bug in the spec (if we accept the premise that the spec
relates to the Real World).
Doesn't that mean that constructs like <br/> _are_
allowed,
Sometimes.
and that a browser that doesn't read them just isn't fully
conformant?

A browser that fails to display a ">" after the <br> is not fully conformant.
At least in those places where it's technically legal.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

[Patrick TJ McPhee]

In article <pa************ *************** *@hotmail.com>,
Oliver M. Haynold <ol*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:
% On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:08:45 +0100, Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
% > Except that <br> is valid in HTML, while <br/> is not.
%
% Correct me if I'm wrong, but HTML 4.01 has a SHORTTAG YES clause in its
% SGML Declaration. Doesn't that mean that constructs like <br/> _are_
% allowed, and that a browser that doesn't read them just isn't fully
% conformant?

Let me reword my previous statement. <br> does not mean the same thing
as <br/> in HTML. <br/> does not mean the same thing in xHTML as it
does in HTML.
--

Patrick TJ McPhee
East York Canada
pt**@interlog.c om

[Bob Foster]

"Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...

In article <pa************ *************** *@hotmail.com>,
Oliver M. Haynold <ol*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:
% On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:08:45 +0100, Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
% > Except that <br> is valid in HTML, while <br/> is not.
%
% Correct me if I'm wrong, but HTML 4.01 has a SHORTTAG YES clause in its
% SGML Declaration. Doesn't that mean that constructs like <br/> _are_
% allowed, and that a browser that doesn't read them just isn't fully
% conformant?

Let me reword my previous statement. <br> does not mean the same thing
as <br/> in HTML. <br/> does not mean the same thing in xHTML as it
does in HTML.

Don't just leave us hanging. What's the diff?

I don't know of any modern browser that a) doesn't accept <br/> or b)
appears to treat it different than <br>, but maybe there's some subtlety I'm
missing wrt b.

Bob Foster

[Bob Foster]

"Nick Kew" <ni**@fenris.we bthing.com> wrote in message
news:57******** ***@jarl.webthi ng.com...

In article <pa************ *************** *@bofh.at>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of Bernd Petrovitsch <be***@bofh.a t> wrote:

<br/> *is* legal HTML.

Nonsense.

Well, except by abbreviated SGML rules that no browser supports, whereby
it resolves to <br>> (yes, the two closing ">"s are not a typo). That's
legal wherever a bare > is legal.

What's nonsense is fussing about what is legal HTML. The horse has left the
barn on this one. The only thing that matters is what browsers accept.

The browsers I am familiar with, which would be IE, Mozilla, Safari, accept
<br/> as well as <br>.

Bob Foster

[Patrick TJ McPhee]

In article <gIeub.226716$H S4.1974234@attb i_s01>,
Bob Foster <bo********@com cast.net> wrote:
% "Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
% news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...
% > In article <pa************ *************** *@hotmail.com>,
% > Oliver M. Haynold <ol*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:
% > % On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:08:45 +0100, Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
% > % > Except that <br> is valid in HTML, while <br/> is not.
% > %
% > % Correct me if I'm wrong, but HTML 4.01 has a SHORTTAG YES clause in its
% > % SGML Declaration. Doesn't that mean that constructs like <br/> _are_
% > % allowed, and that a browser that doesn't read them just isn't fully
% > % conformant?
% >
% > Let me reword my previous statement. <br> does not mean the same thing
% > as <br/> in HTML. <br/> does not mean the same thing in xHTML as it
% > does in HTML.
%
% Don't just leave us hanging. What's the diff?
%
% I don't know of any modern browser that a) doesn't accept <br/> or b)
% appears to treat it different than <br>, but maybe there's some subtlety I'm
% missing wrt b.

There's no subtlety here. As has been pointed out, <br/> in HTML is the
same as <br>>. It may be that there's no browser which gets it right,
but that's just saying that nobody really gives a shit about standards,
and that it doesn't matter whether you adhere to them, so long as it works.
--

Patrick TJ McPhee
East York Canada
pt**@interlog.c om

[Bob Foster]

"Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...

In article <gIeub.226716$H S4.1974234@attb i_s01>,
Bob Foster <bo********@com cast.net> wrote:
% "Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
% news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...
% > In article <pa************ *************** *@hotmail.com>,
% > Oliver M. Haynold <ol*********@ho tmail.com> wrote:
% > % On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:08:45 +0100, Patrick TJ McPhee wrote:
% > % > Except that <br> is valid in HTML, while <br/> is not.
% > %
% > % Correct me if I'm wrong, but HTML 4.01 has a SHORTTAG YES clause in its % > % SGML Declaration. Doesn't that mean that constructs like <br/> _are_
% > % allowed, and that a browser that doesn't read them just isn't fully
% > % conformant?
% >
% > Let me reword my previous statement. <br> does not mean the same thing
% > as <br/> in HTML. <br/> does not mean the same thing in xHTML as it
% > does in HTML.
%
% Don't just leave us hanging. What's the diff?
%
% I don't know of any modern browser that a) doesn't accept <br/> or b)
% appears to treat it different than <br>, but maybe there's some subtlety I'm % missing wrt b.

There's no subtlety here. As has been pointed out, <br/> in HTML is the
same as <br>>. It may be that there's no browser which gets it right,
but that's just saying that nobody really gives a shit about standards,
and that it doesn't matter whether you adhere to them, so long as it works.

If one gave a shit about standards one would not write, in two consecutive
postings:
<br> does not mean the same thing as <br/> in HTML <br/> in HTML is the same as <br>

Bob Foster

[Johannes Koch]

Bob Foster wrote:

If one gave a shit about standards one would not write, in two consecutive
postings:

<br> does not mean the same thing as <br/> in HTML

<br/> in HTML is the same as <br>

Could you please read and quote properly? What Patrick did write was:
"Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...

As has been pointed out, <br/> in HTML is the
same as <br>>.

Note the '>>' after '<br'. So when rendered, the second should be a line
break and a '>' character and not a line break only.

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

[Bob Foster]

I do my best. If I misquoted, I apologize. The "give a shit" in his response
kinda set me off.

Bob

"Johannes Koch" <ko**@w3develop ment.de> wrote in message
news:bp******** *****@ID-61067.news.uni-berlin.de...

Bob Foster wrote:

If one gave a shit about standards one would not write, in two consecutive postings:

<br> does not mean the same thing as <br/> in HTML

<br/> in HTML is the same as <br>

Could you please read and quote properly? What Patrick did write was:

> "Patrick TJ McPhee" <pt**@interlog. com> wrote in message
> news:bp******** **@news.eusc.in ter.net...

>>As has been pointed out, <br/> in HTML is the
>>same as <br>>.

Note the '>>' after '<br'. So when rendered, the second should be a line
break and a '>' character and not a line break only.

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

[Patrick TJ McPhee]

In article <P2pvb.202849$2 75.751333@attbi _s53>,
Bob Foster <bo********@com cast.net> wrote:
% I do my best. If I misquoted, I apologize. The "give a shit" in his response
% kinda set me off.

I'm sorry if I distressed you. I was giving my opionion of the `it
works, so what's the problem?' line of reasoning -- it really depends on
your attitude towards standards compliance.
--

Patrick TJ McPhee
East York Canada
pt**@interlog.c om