Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
Don Park writes:
> I would like know exactly what W3C's position is on the use of
> Processing Instruction.
Perhaps we should start a W3C Should-People-Use-PIs Working Group, or
even a PI Activity with several WGs (the PIs-In-Old-HTML-Browsers WG,
the PIs-For-Stylesheets WG, etc.).
Sorry -- Tim's reply is actually a bit more useful. This is really a
question about people and their (varying) opinions, not about W3C
policy. Here are the two ends of the spectrum:
1. PIs are probably too useful to drop altogether -- they allow you to
do things like mark irregular revision boundaries, invent new
declaration types, etc.
2. Level-three-browser compatibility is probably too important to drop
altogether -- PIs are unlikely to show up in specs that might be
used on HTML pages (Namespaces, RDF, Stylesheet linking, XHTML).
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)