Template Parsing Mode

In reading the help docs about template parsing mode, it is not apparent which mode is the most recommended. I ask this because I saw another thread about advantages/disadvantages on iwov and xml dcr types (someone said xml is the direction IW is heading). So, which is the preferred way and why of the following (straight from help file). I already know about the non-xml and advantage of no CDATA. Is one of them where IW is heading?

Outermost tags are iw_pt
[HTML]some stuff[/HTML]
or Omit iw_pt
[HTML]some stuff[/HTML]
or Begin template with iw_pt
[HTML]some stuff[/HTML]
or Begin template with iw_pt encoding=
[HTML]some stuff[/HTML]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

ISCBorisB

In reading the help docs about template parsing mode, it is not apparent which mode is the most recommended. I ask this because I saw another thread about advantages/disadvantages on iwov and xml dcr types (someone said xml is the direction IW is heading). So, which is the preferred way and why of the following (straight from help file). I already know about the non-xml and advantage of no CDATA. Is one of them where IW is heading?

Outermost tags are iw_pt or Omit iw_pt or Begin template with iw_pt [...]

You are mixing apples and oranges.

IWOV and XML are DCR Type modes, other things (like backward compatibility) being equal XML is recommended.
We can discuss why as long as we are clear of [thread=24872]what we are talking about[/thread]. Note that formally both modes are
XML, IWOV mode has *pre-canned* simple DTD though.

What you've illustrated in samples is PT parsing mode, it is independent of DCR Type mode and can be changed
irrespectively of it. Here the recommendation is to use non-XML mode, <iw_pt/> or <iw_pt encoding="Your Encoding"/>

nipper

Certainly use XML style DCRs, non-XML TPLs or go to XSLT.

TroyB

Sorry if it seemed I was mixing them in my post. The other thread about dcr types just made me wonder if there was a similar preference/future for pt parsing modes. Point being I did not want to use a particular parsing mode if everyone already understood that IW was pushing one particular pt parsing mode over the others for the future. Thank you for clarifying what the intent of this thread is.

Sounds like you guys are in agreement about non-XML mode so I will change my presentation template over. I had been using strict XML parsing thinking it was the preferred way, but it was giving me a big headache.

Thanks.

Adam Stoller

Sorry if it seemed I was mixing them in my post. The other thread about dcr types just made me wonder if there was a similar preference/future for pt parsing modes. Point being I did not want to use a particular parsing mode if everyone already understood that IW was pushing one particular pt parsing mode over the others for the future. Thank you for clarifying what the intent of this thread is.

Sounds like you guys are in agreement about non-XML mode so I will change my presentation template over. I had been using strict XML parsing thinking it was the preferred way, but it was giving me a big headache.

Thanks.

It may get more confusing in the future, as Interwoven continues to try to phase-out Perl and/or if you need to work with "non-OS users" -- and thus have to use XSLT instead of PTs to process your DCRs...

However, beyond that, I think your summary is correct: new DCRs should be defined as "xml" type and PTs should be written in "non-XML" manner. However my only change to what has been posted is that I prefer leaving out the iw_pt tag completely and writing my PTs in a mixture of XHTML (transitional) compliant code and Perl (mostly the latter to result in the former ;-)