What is W3C's official position on use of PI?
paul at prescod.net
Thu May 13 03:37:15 BST 1999
Don Park wrote:
> Thanks for clearing that up. Do you what the folks who "regard PIs as
> problematic second-class syntax" recommend for first-class out-of-band
> signaling mechanism? I wouldn't mind giving up PI if there was an
Well, Liam Quin has been a constant critic of processing instructions.
As I said in that message, the important thing about processing
instructions is that they are invisible to content models. If XML Schemas
invented a way to make elements invisible to content models (like SGML's
inclusion exceptions, but maybe only allowed at the top level) and a way
to add these inclusions to existing schemas easily then processing
instructions could be replaced by these "floating", element types. That
would be neat.
But if there are no floating element types then we still need processing
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
Diplomatic term: "Regret"
Translation: To care, but not enough to condemn. ("We regret the loss of
life in Sierra Leone. We have no intention to do anything
to stop it, mind you, but we regret that it happened.")
(Brill's Content, Apr. 1999)
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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev