scripts and PIs

[Marcus Carr]

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> Suppose I declare a notation like:
> <!NOTATION ECMAScript SYSTEM "http://www.ecma.ch/stand/ECMA-262.htm">
>
> and then a PI like:
> <?ECMAScript {document.write("Hello, World!");}?>
>
> It seems more reasonable in many ways than
> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT">
> <![CDATA[
> {document.write("Hello, World!");}
> ]]>
> </SCRIPT>
>
> Any thoughts on the subject?

I prefer PIs. I don't like the idea that the currrent mechanism to insert script also carries
an implied structural significance - that  might sometimes be true, but I'd prefer to be able
to make that decision. Also, I think that script is very much a "processing instruction" type
of thing. Would we then require/desire more control over PIs by allowing them to support
attributes though? If you had to wrap the PI in an element just so you had somewhere to store
other information it would seem not to buy much, but it would be interesting if the PI was
able to handle them as well. Even without attributes I prefer PIs - they seem more natural
than an element and a CDATA section.


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc at allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein



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)