Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Eve L. Maler" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:14:43 -0600
Eve L. Maler wrote:
> At 02:53 PM 3/14/97 -0600, Len Bullard wrote:
> >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.
> I'm not sure I catch your distinction. If we agree on a meaning and a
> syntax for it, we've made a convention.
If we agree on a convention, one of us can break it at any time
without a serious penalty. If we make a contract, either can
enforce it. The PI is a contract. So is the DTD we're
trying to avoid with a hack.
> But XML doesn't have inclusions, and any one document may not even have
> DTDs. So your "ifs" sometimes don't come true. I agree that we don't want
> to push legitimate DTD functions into PIs, which give you a lot less
> validation power. But processing instructions (in the regular English
> sense) don't belong in the normal markup scheme most of the time.
Then why are they in the data? Why were they deprecated? What
is in the SGML Way that is being overlooked here? Why is it
being overlooked? Which is wrong: the SGML Way or the use of PIs?
IOW, what the PIs you suggest do is put metainformation inside
an instance. Why? What is it they will convey that an XML engine
will not already know by reading the specification or could know
by reading a DTD? Is the DTD not there simply because members
of the Working Group don't want them to be but now can't find
a way to get around the functionality they provided?
> Well, a reference to a stylesheet is surely a link, but not all links are
> references to stylesheets. Also, not all processing instructions are links
> to something. Do you think PIs are never appropriate?
I didn't say that. I'm wondering why they are suddenly a preferred
practice when they were formerly a deprecated practice? What is
worse, a DTD I send once and might be very small, or PIs I send
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (email@example.com)