[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: THOMAS PASSIN <tpassin@idsonline.com>, <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:11:45 -0400
At 08:57 AM 4/7/00 -0400, THOMAS PASSIN wrote:
>So I don't see the objection to using PIs.
The specific objection you noted - that PIs show up in browsers - really
only applies to XHTML, where browsers use HTML parsers that don't
understand PIs.
The more general statement that the W3C somehow see PIs as evil is more or
less gossip, substantiated publicly only by:
"The W3C does not anticipate recommending the use of processing
instructions in any future specification." (from Associating Stylesheets)
There was also the changeover from PIs to attributes in the Namespaces
spec, though in theory that was about scoping, not moral objection to PIs.
I'd love to see some kind of official comment on PIs, since I think they'd
be extremely useful for a number of tasks, including putting scripts
(processing, right?) into XML documents.
The status of PIs is an important issue, I think.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
