[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- To: "Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:53:52 -0600
Eve L. Maler wrote:
>
>
> The difference is that, by convention, you're making PI markup available
> that's available to every document and to every *location* in a document if
> necessary, no matter what its DTD (and no matter whether it even has one).
> It just happens to look suspiciously like a start-tag, which may be helpful
> to any software that has to parse the PI string.
By convention? You mean, by application.
An inclusion on root makes an empty element available
to every location. A PI is something every document has to have.
That isn't an improvement. If you use a DOCTYPE and know the DTD,
don't
you get the same effect? XML goes out it's way to load up an
instance just to get around a DTD. I question the utility of that.
We tell them they are being freed of fixed markup, then add a
question mark and say, oh, that's OK, that's XML.
> I don't think links in general should be done this way, but I do believe in
> PIs being used for, uh, instructions to processors.
Ummm... sure. Sort of what links are.
> (In other words, I'm
> not 100% against PIs, as some people are.) In particular, I'm starting to
> get very fond of PIs for anything that has to be specified per entity.
No doubt.
len
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
