[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 2:53 AM -0700 7/28/02, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>a.) The only difference between using attributes from a special
>processing namespace and PIs is that the attributes can be validated
>while the PIs cannot. Everything else you mentioned is a red herring.
>
I disagree on two points:
1. PIs can be validated provided you use a language that supports
this, such as Schematron.
2. PIs don't are not validated by default in any schema language I
know of. Thus they can slip in behind the back of schemas and
validation software in a way that attributes can't. This is exactly
the behavior that's needed to avoid "severely crufty
executable-comment embedded languages".
Processing instructions are a positive *good*. They make it possible
to provide useful information intended for specific, named processes
which does not apply to all processes processing a document. This is
especially true when the targetted process should operate on
documents from multiple XML applications. The classic examples are
Web browsers with xml-stylesheet processing instructions and the
Cocoon application server with cocoon processing instructions.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
