On Friday, April 11, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: <snip>
There's nothing "wrong" with your approach, but you are using XSP to produce XHTML, and the latter /may/ contain styling information. Producing styled output from XSP is imho a bad idea which is why, in the process you describe, starting from an initial document I might do FooML(source) -> XSLT(adds some XSP elements) -> XSP(processes XSP stuff) -> XSLT(styles).
In such cases, what I've done is XSP(does dynamic stuff *and* includes the real content, usually from path info) -> XSLT(styles).
I guess my way of doing it would be XML -> XSLT (which creates XHTML but also includes XSP tags) -> XSP -> XHTML.
That way the XSLT is still responsible for creating the XHTML and then the XSP just adds in the dynamic elements. But I could see situations where you might want to use some intermediate XML format and then do a final XSLT to create XHTML.
Maybe I'm just being a content purist though ;-)
I am, and I tend to have http://foo.org/src/foo/bar.xml to access the content in itself (with no decoration) and http://foo.org/cms.xsp/foo/bar.xml to get the page people want to see.
<snip>
The seems rather hackish to me...
I would have though something like:
http://foo.org/foo/bar.xml (gives nice XHTML in the style of the site)
http://foo.org/foo/bar.xml?style=printable (gives another style suitable for printing)
http://foo.org/foo/bar.xml?style=raw (returns the original XML document)
or similar would be nicer than separating all the other styles from the 'raw' one. And then it saves having to do tricks with path_info...
But each to his own I guess :-)
Regards, Chris
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
