Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Handling of PIs (was RE: [xml-dev] Choosing a target name...)
- From: Tatu Saloranta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=yVgY4tekSF5NAHCh5dN39mGU246/6XyyMxCsEB1MOzgzTLEGPArjsfoSs+t4xOJ7ZRGwC+OxkrnQnuk6k5iDiEWGYRwx6PMNtiB/ZWDvHE6Wqi1AjBxu/wi1nkigQQnovhmYJmpJnISBEn1G+UHdczHJsbPKDIzot+9wkw3T56s= ;
- In-reply-to: <4457EDFC.email@example.com>
--- Elliotte Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> > for comments was more optional), and at least
> > regarding parsers, they must be passed to handling
> > app/tool.
> XML doesn't really define a processing model. This
> is arguably a flaw in
> the spec. What must be passed is pretty haphazard.
Quite... but I thought that following (XML 1.0 specs,
2.6) was quite clear on this:
"PIs are not part of the document's character data,
but MUST be passed through to the application."
And this is quite different from what is said about,
"They are not part of the document's character data;
an XML processor MAY, but need not, make it possible
for an application to retrieve the text of comments."
Now, I do understand that just saying something should
(or MUST) be provided does not prescribe exact
mechanism... but a general-purpose API to an xml
processing tool that lacks such facility does seem
against the spirit of the specs, no?
> For instance, XML
> processors must provide default attribute values
> when no specified
> attribute is present. However there's no rule that
> says they have to
> provide specified attribute values.
-+ Tatu +-
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around