You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2002/11/04 11:00:16 UTC
including scripting in output files
next question: how do i embed scripting instructions into xml? for
instance, php? suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
output .html file:
<?php phpinfo(); ?>
how do i represent this in the xml?
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
>> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the
>> HTMLSerializer happily chops the second question mark away from the
>> output:
>>
>> <?php phpinfo() >
>> ^^
>>
>> Let's complain loudly :-)
>
>
>
> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>
>
> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
> wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
> is known to have issues.
Yep, I was justing reading up on the AbstractTextSerializer, not much to
be seen there. I'll check out with Xalan.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>> Let's complain loudly :-)
>>
>> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>>
>>
>> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are
>> barely wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity
>> transformer is known to have issues.
>
>
> Be careful, the Xalan serializer is ok.
Are you sure? See welcome.html in the Cocoon (uncomment DOCTYPE) and see
what Xalan does with it (answer: it outputs all comments from the DTD
and all inluded files into the output, see Cocoon bugzilla). Saxon works
ok there.
There is the bug report opened against Xalan identity transformer, and
it was stated there that it has flaws.
PS Don't know about PIs though :)
Vadim
> I just wasn't sure whether
> Cocoon passed PIs down the pipelines.
>
> Read
> http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200201/msg00447.html
> and followups for some related discussion.
>
> J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>> Let's complain loudly :-)
>>
>> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>>
>>
>> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are
>> barely wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity
>> transformer is known to have issues.
>
>
> Be careful, the Xalan serializer is ok.
Are you sure? See welcome.html in the Cocoon (uncomment DOCTYPE) and see
what Xalan does with it (answer: it outputs all comments from the DTD
and all inluded files into the output, see Cocoon bugzilla). Saxon works
ok there.
There is the bug report opened against Xalan identity transformer, and
it was stated there that it has flaws.
PS Don't know about PIs though :)
Vadim
> I just wasn't sure whether
> Cocoon passed PIs down the pipelines.
>
> Read
> http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200201/msg00447.html
> and followups for some related discussion.
>
> J.Pietschmann
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>> Let's complain loudly :-)
> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>
>
> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
> wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
> is known to have issues.
Be careful, the Xalan serializer is ok. I just wasn't sure whether
Cocoon passed PIs down the pipelines.
Read
http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200201/msg00447.html
and followups for some related discussion.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>> Let's complain loudly :-)
> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>
>
> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
> wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
> is known to have issues.
Be careful, the Xalan serializer is ok. I just wasn't sure whether
Cocoon passed PIs down the pipelines.
Read
http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200201/msg00447.html
and followups for some related discussion.
J.Pietschmann
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
>> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the
>> HTMLSerializer happily chops the second question mark away from the
>> output:
>>
>> <?php phpinfo() >
>> ^^
>>
>> Let's complain loudly :-)
>
>
>
> ... to Xalan guys! :)
>
>
> All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
> wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
> is known to have issues.
Yep, I was justing reading up on the AbstractTextSerializer, not much to
be seen there. I'll check out with Xalan.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
>> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>>>> suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
>>>>> output .html file:
>>>>>
>>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>>>
>>>>> how do i represent this in the xml?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
>>> trigger the php parsing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
>> which copies PI through (should be already there...)
>> If this doesn't work with Cocoon, complain on the Cocoon
>> list, LOUDLY.
>
>
> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the
> HTMLSerializer happily chops the second question mark away from the
> output:
>
> <?php phpinfo() >
> ^^
>
> Let's complain loudly :-)
... to Xalan guys! :)
All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
is known to have issues.
PS: Has anybody tried Saxon?
Vadim
> </Steven>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the HTMLSerializer
> happily chops the second question mark away from the output:
>
> <?php phpinfo() >
> ^^
>
> Let's complain loudly :-)
That's the way PIs are serialized in HTML. Take the XML serializer...oh
well, need special tinkering for <br> and such...
Maybe the serializer can be tricked with
<?php phpinfo() ??>
but I think it will output
<?php phpinfo() ? >
Last resort: Run something like
<xsl:template match="*">
<xsl:text><</xsl:text>
<xsl:value-of select="name()">
<xsl:for-each select="@*">
<xsl:text> </xsl:text>
<xsl:value-of select="name()">
<xsl:text>=</xsl:text>
<xsl:value-of select=".">
</xsl:for-each>
<xsl:text>></xsl:text>
<xsl:apply-templates select="node()"/>
<xsl:text></</xsl:text>
<xsl:value-of select="name()">
<xsl:text>></xsl:text>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="processing-instruction()">
<xsl:text><?</xsl:text>
<xsl:value-of select=".">
<xsl:text>?></xsl:text>
</xsl:template>
and use the text serializer (be carful with encodings, UTF-8 for best
results).
Actually PHP source *is* text, stuff like
<div class=<?php echo "$class"?>>
is *not valid HTML or XML or whatever.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
>> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>>>> suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
>>>>> output .html file:
>>>>>
>>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>>>
>>>>> how do i represent this in the xml?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
>>> trigger the php parsing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
>> which copies PI through (should be already there...)
>> If this doesn't work with Cocoon, complain on the Cocoon
>> list, LOUDLY.
>
>
> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the
> HTMLSerializer happily chops the second question mark away from the
> output:
>
> <?php phpinfo() >
> ^^
>
> Let's complain loudly :-)
... to Xalan guys! :)
All Cocoon serializers extended from AbstractTextSerializer are barely
wrappers around identity transformer. And Xalan's identity transformer
is known to have issues.
PS: Has anybody tried Saxon?
Vadim
> </Steven>
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Steven Noels wrote:
>
> > Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
urg. more xml-speak to an xml-unaware person. this
fella him no belong xml, savvy?
> Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the HTMLSerializer
> happily chops the second question mark away from the output:
>
> <?php phpinfo() >
> ^^
>
> Let's complain loudly :-)
what happens in a case such as:
<?php
if (($a < 10) || ($a > 23)) {
varf();
}
?>
what will happen wrt the embedded '<' and '>'?
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>>> suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
>>>> output .html file:
>>>>
>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>>
>>>> how do i represent this in the xml?
>>>
>>>
>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>
>>
>>
>> nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
>> trigger the php parsing.
>
>
> Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
> which copies PI through (should be already there...)
> If this doesn't work with Cocoon, complain on the Cocoon
> list, LOUDLY.
Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the HTMLSerializer
happily chops the second question mark away from the output:
<?php phpinfo() >
^^
Let's complain loudly :-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>>> suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
>>>> output .html file:
>>>>
>>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>>
>>>> how do i represent this in the xml?
>>>
>>>
>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>
>>
>>
>> nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
>> trigger the php parsing.
>
>
> Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
> which copies PI through (should be already there...)
> If this doesn't work with Cocoon, complain on the Cocoon
> list, LOUDLY.
Template is there, PI-template there, but apparently the HTMLSerializer
happily chops the second question mark away from the output:
<?php phpinfo() >
^^
Let's complain loudly :-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>>suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
>>>output .html file:
>>>
>>> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>>>
>>>how do i represent this in the xml?
>>
>><?php phpinfo(); ?>
>
>
> nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
> trigger the php parsing.
Use <?php phpinfo(); ?> and add a template to the XSLT
which copies PI through (should be already there...)
If this doesn't work with Cocoon, complain on the Cocoon
list, LOUDLY.
Otherwise, not a chance.
J.Pietschmann
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> > suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
> > output .html file:
> >
> > <?php phpinfo(); ?>
> >
> > how do i represent this in the xml?
>
> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
nope, sorry; the brokets remain encoded and therefore do not
trigger the php parsing.
and the following doesn't work because 'script' isn't in the
dtd.
<script language="php">
phpinfo();
</script>
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
>>docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
>>related Apache tools... would this be useful?
>
>
> i am reading this as facetious. the above seems tantamount to
> the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
> know xml.' that's not going to win popularity contests. i think
Thanks for learning me a new English word :-)
No, it wasn't meant as facetious - if that's what the community wants,
and it helps us to convince more people about XML, then we'll do that.
We shouldn't lie to our users however: Forrest is very XML/XSLT-centric,
and while we are now trying to support 'legacy content', it's not a Good
Thing to further encourage, especially for content where migrating to
XML is very much possible. Your form however is a good example of
content which can very well stay in its original PDF format.
> it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
> to) will have even less xml experience than i. they don't *want*
> to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
> to make their site look/behave the way they want. many will be
> content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
> starters. they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
> their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
> enhance their resumes.
For sure. Only one remark: I really would like to see people move away
from HTML and start authoring XML, so having pipelines to read static
HTML should be subject to a vote IMHO. While we do want to support our
dear users, we don't necessarily have to support all of their bad habits ;-)
> as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
> <url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
> sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
> a goal for forrest? i do.. but i'm only a user.
There's nothing which keeps you from adding non-XML snippets inside your
content in an syntactically correct way (using processing instructions
or CDATA sections, that is).
However: 100% of the web browsers support HTML, and yet at least three
different site generation frameworks exist @ apache.org to make sure
people don't have to author using HTML, but can use XML instead. I think
we should educate our users, but I'm only a Forrest developer :-)
OK - that's me in my MarkUpPolizei-uniform ;-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> > as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
> > <url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
> > sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
> > a goal for forrest?
>
> Sure. Can you please explain better what you mean by "interoperability"?
making it simple for someone who runs a php-enabled site to
[re]structure the layout with forrest..?
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Steven Noels wrote:
>
>>I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
>>though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
>>content, won't they?
>
>
> why not? see the bottom.
>
>
>>Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
>>docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
>>related Apache tools... would this be useful?
>
>
> i am reading this as facetious. the above seems tantamount to
> the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
> know xml.'
Ahem, just ATM.
Since the first users of forrest, anakia, or whatever knew XML, this
issue never came up here.
> that's not going to win popularity contests. i think
> it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
> to) will have even less xml experience than i. they don't *want*
> to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
> to make their site look/behave the way they want. many will be
> content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
> starters. they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
> their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
> enhance their resumes.
Right.
As I said, I'm working on a wiki-like format for content editors, and in
the near future on direct editing in the browser.
> as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
> <url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
> sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
> a goal for forrest?
Sure. Can you please explain better what you mean by "interoperability"?
> i do.. but i'm only a user.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Robert Koberg wrote:
>Hi,
>
>If your goal is to output PHP, then I think a tool like forrest (or any XSL
>based tool) is not what you want.
>
>>>From a quick search I did not see any way to create well-formed PHP. The
>workarounds to get the PHP output through XSL would be painful and ugly to say
>the least.
>
>This, in my view, is a failing of PHP - it can't be well-formed. JSP had the
>same problem but SUN introduced well-formed JSP.
>
>I would say that minimally you need to understand basic XML to use a tool like
>forrest.
>
>Maybe more searching would turn up something like:
>
><php:script>
>blah blah
></php:script>
>
According to http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.basic-syntax.php,
following should work:
<script language="php">
echo ("some editors (like FrontPage) don't like processing instructions");
</script>
Vadim
>-Rob
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
>>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:17 AM
>>To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: including scripting in output files
>>
>>
>>Steven Noels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
>>>though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
>>>content, won't they?
>>>
>>>
>>why not? see the bottom.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
>>>docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
>>>related Apache tools... would this be useful?
>>>
>>>
>>i am reading this as facetious. the above seems tantamount to
>>the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
>>know xml.' that's not going to win popularity contests. i think
>>it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
>>to) will have even less xml experience than i. they don't *want*
>>to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
>>to make their site look/behave the way they want. many will be
>>content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
>>starters. they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
>>their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
>>enhance their resumes.
>>
>>as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
>><url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
>>sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
>>a goal for forrest? i do.. but i'm only a user.
>>
>>
RE: including scripting in output files
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi,
If your goal is to output PHP, then I think a tool like forrest (or any XSL
based tool) is not what you want.
>From a quick search I did not see any way to create well-formed PHP. The
workarounds to get the PHP output through XSL would be painful and ugly to say
the least.
This, in my view, is a failing of PHP - it can't be well-formed. JSP had the
same problem but SUN introduced well-formed JSP.
I would say that minimally you need to understand basic XML to use a tool like
forrest.
Maybe more searching would turn up something like:
<php:script>
blah blah
</php:script>
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:17 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: including scripting in output files
>
>
> Steven Noels wrote:
> >
> > I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
> > though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
> > content, won't they?
>
> why not? see the bottom.
>
> > Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
> > docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
> > related Apache tools... would this be useful?
>
> i am reading this as facetious. the above seems tantamount to
> the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
> know xml.' that's not going to win popularity contests. i think
> it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
> to) will have even less xml experience than i. they don't *want*
> to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
> to make their site look/behave the way they want. many will be
> content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
> starters. they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
> their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
> enhance their resumes.
>
> as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
> <url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
> sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
> a goal for forrest? i do.. but i'm only a user.
>
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Steven Noels wrote:
>
> I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers
> though: real authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their
> content, won't they?
why not? see the bottom.
> Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest
> docs - as with Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation
> related Apache tools... would this be useful?
i am reading this as facetious. the above seems tantamount to
the statement 'in order to use forrest [effectively], you must
know xml.' that's not going to win popularity contests. i think
it most likely that people coming to forrest (or at least trying
to) will have even less xml experience than i. they don't *want*
to know xml; they want to know what they need to put where in order
to make their site look/behave the way they want. many will be
content with <section>, <title>, <p> and the like, at least for
starters. they're going to want to use forrest because it makes
their job *easier*, not because they can use it as an excuse to
enhance their resumes.
as for php: take a look at <url:http://www.php.net/usage.php> and
<url:http://netcraft.com/survey/>. 26% (nine million plus) of web
sites use php. do you think making interoperability easy should be
a goal for forrest? i do.. but i'm only a user.
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> as i find my way into it more, meseems forrest is intended for xml-aware
> programmers rather than content designers/developers. true or false?
> your answers will affect your final grade.. :-)
>
>
> thanks for the info, btw. is any of this documented in the forrest
> docs themselves?
Welcome to the wonderful world of XML, where the syntax has been tuned
to ease the life of grammar parser developers. What you just have
experienced are processing instructions and Character Data sections.
I don't follow your argument about developers vs designers though: real
authors wouldn't put <?php fragments into their content, won't they?
Nope, an XML course hasn't been included into the Forrest docs - as with
Anakia, Stylebook and other site-generation related Apache tools...
would this be useful? I happen to be able to fit my XML syntax intro
course into any time scale possible: the shortest so far is under 15'.
Maybe a little write-up of that could be added to Forrest.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
RE: including scripting in output files
Posted by Robert Koberg <ro...@koberg.com>.
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:33 AM
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: including scripting in output files
>
>
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >
> > > <?php phpinfo(); ?>
> > >
> > > how do i represent this in the xml?
> >
> > <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>
> in a word: eeeew. have you ever looked at a moderately complex php
> page? it typically pops into and out of php mode ('<?' or '<?php'
> and '?>') dozens of times. this is going to become disgusting in
> next to no time.. but if there's no real alternative.. :-(
Does PHP have an XML version, like JSP? You can write JSP in two ways the old
way similar to PHP and an XML version that is well-formed.
-Rob
>
> > Or for large blocks, <![CDATA[ <?php phpinfo(); ?> ]]>
>
> now, *that's* intuitive..
>
> as i find my way into it more, meseems forrest is intended for xml-aware
> programmers rather than content designers/developers. true or false?
> your answers will affect your final grade.. :-)
>
>
> thanks for the info, btw. is any of this documented in the forrest
> docs themselves?
>
>
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> > <?php phpinfo(); ?>
> >
> > how do i represent this in the xml?
>
> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
in a word: eeeew. have you ever looked at a moderately complex php
page? it typically pops into and out of php mode ('<?' or '<?php'
and '?>') dozens of times. this is going to become disgusting in
next to no time.. but if there's no real alternative.. :-(
> Or for large blocks, <![CDATA[ <?php phpinfo(); ?> ]]>
now, *that's* intuitive..
as i find my way into it more, meseems forrest is intended for xml-aware
programmers rather than content designers/developers. true or false?
your answers will affect your final grade.. :-)
thanks for the info, btw. is any of this documented in the forrest
docs themselves?
Re: including scripting in output files
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:00:16AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> next question: how do i embed scripting instructions into xml? for
> instance, php? suppose i want the following to appear verbatim in the
> output .html file:
>
> <?php phpinfo(); ?>
>
> how do i represent this in the xml?
<?php phpinfo(); ?>
Or for large blocks, <![CDATA[ <?php phpinfo(); ?> ]]>
Useful ref:
http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
--Jeff