Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Eve L. Maler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: James Clark <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:10:03 -0500
At 10:57 AM 3/11/97 +0700, James Clark wrote:
>At 12:24 10/03/97 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>Of course, it'd have to be
>>for XML, no?
>Well, this is something that is applicable to SGML in general not just to
>XML. Since <?xml-stylesheet is no more reserved than <?stylesheet in SGML, I
>would rather use simply <?stylesheet for SGML. A general-purpose SGML
>browser should probably make the keyword user configurable.
This is interesting: Should an XML effort determine a PI that should be
usable in general by SGML documents? I tend to think that the "authority"
that invents/maintains the format of the PI should be identified, and "XML"
sort of fits the bill, similarly to <?SO. We did say that the first name
token in a PI functions as a sort of notation. It would be weird for an
XML spec to specify <?stylesheet .
I've also been beating the drum on the WG list about how our PIs should
have "GIs" as well as "attribute specs," so I'd prefer to see <?XML
stylesheet att1="val1" att2="val2"... ?>. This way, "<?XML" targets the PI
so that it will be processed by an XML-aware processor, and the rest
identifies the semantics of the instruction.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)