[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- To: <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:14:00 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
To: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@ix.netcom.com>; "Clark C. Evans"
<cce@clarkevans.com>; "Peter Murray-Rust" <peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <xml-dev@xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))
> More than that, there's this bit from the W3C Recommendation _Associating
> Stylesheets with XML Documents_:
>
> >The W3C does
> >not anticipate recommending the use of processing instructions in any
future
> >specification."
That's right, PIs show up in legacy browsers. Seems like a theoretically
sound reason to forbid them to me ;~)
There's been talk on this list of a "packaging" proposal ... is this more or
less the same idea? Does it seem like a logical place to put a features
manifest?
Alternatively, Schemas can be construed as a "contract" between producers
and consumers as to what content is allowed/expected/etc. Would that be a
logical place to put the XFM? Is there any possibility of getting the
Schema WG to add such a thing to their already crushing list of
requirements?
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
