> 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@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)