[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
- From: "Al B. Snell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Peter Flynn <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:05:09 +0100 (BST)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Peter Flynn wrote:
> >But... they're called Processing Instructions!
> A historical curiosity. It refers to processing the document *after*
> has finished with it (eg typesetting).
Can they now be considered semi-deprecated?
> >....but PHP just happens to use that syntax for compatability, you
> can just as
> >easily write:
> ><<?php echo $element_name?> foo="bar">
> > Content!
> ></<?php echo $element_name?>>
> But then you have invalid markup, which is both useless and pointless.
It's messy, indeed.
> >because it finds the <?php with a state machine that traverses the
> No, because PHP neither knows nor cares about preserving
> the non-PHP parts of the document.
That's the cause, I explained the effect :-)
> ><title>How I Made <typesetting-hints:linebreak />A Million Dollars</title>
> >....suits me more :-)
> That is perfectly possible, but it requires adding to the DTD or
> Schema if
> one is in use. The whole point about PIs is that they are NOT part
> of the
> structure of the document. In TEI I often use <LB> for linebreaks
> it *IS* part of the document structure when you are encoding the
> appearance of a historical document. When the linebreak is merely
> to the appearance on a current occasion, a PI is more appropriate.
If they're not described in the DTD/Schema they can't be validated and
nice XML editors can't suggest which ones are legal in any situation. Is