Why not PIs for namespace declarations?

[Clark C. Evans]

On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Andrew Layman wrote:
> > > Clark Evans asks why PIs are not the mechanism for namespace declaration.
> > > That option was extensively debated during the design process (see the
> > > archives for details).  The short answer is that PIs do not have tree scope,
> > > so are unsuitable for modular document construction.
> 
> Bad short answer; see below.

Oh ya!  Stupid me.  Very sorry.

content ::= (element | CharData | Reference | CDSect | PI | Comment)   

> What you're suggesting is that PIs be lexically scoped.
> (That's what Andrew seems to mean by "tree" scope.)
> 
> And in fact, there's nothing in the world preventing the
> definition of a particular PI from using lexical scope.
> One doesn't need all PIs to work that way; only one.
> 
> > 
> > <parent>
> >   <child>
> >     <?pi?>
> >     <grandchild/>
> >     <!-- pi's scope ends here -->
> >   </child>
> > </parent>






xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)