OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))

[ 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
> >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

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

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/


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS