RE: [xml-dev] processing instruction with 'xml' target

[<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>]

Michael Kay said:
>> I agree in novices, but it appears to be not limited to early
>> 1998 since it spread until 2006:
>>
>> [http://www.xmlwriter.net/xml_guide/processing_instruction.shtml]
>>
>> [http://www.xmlwriter.net/xml_guide/xml_declaration.shtml]
>>
>> [http://aspalliance.com/515_Working_with_XML_Processing_Instru
>> ctions_in_C]
>>
>> [http://www.javacommerce.com/displaypage.jsp?name=pi.sql&id=18238]
>>
>> [http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Languages/XML/Tutorials/Intro/d
>> eclare.html]
>>
>> [http://www.xml.su/]
>>
>> This is unfortunate.
>
> Yes, there's lots of rubbish on the net. What a wonderful discovery.
> Perhaps in future you'll argue your case on its merits rather than by
> trying to count the number of people with a particular view.

Not just on the net. The first time i learn XML was with the book
Publicación en Internet y tecnología XML. By Alonso Rodríguez Zamora RA-MA
2004 (Madrid).

In page 219 says that XML declaration is a PI. Now i know that the XML
declaration is not.

Conclusion:

- Either the XML spec continues to be ambiguous and/or confusing for people.

- Either misunderstandings from your 'novices' continue spreading until
our days.

None option is good!

Just some days ago some people at this list discussed contradictory points
of view about PIs, and reserved names. This week some claim that
'xml-stylesheet' is reserved other claim just the contrary. What is your
senior opinion?

> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/