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

[Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@yahoo.com>]

--- juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:

> Chris Burdess said:
> > <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> I am not sure if when I write <?xml
> version="1.0"?> in a doc I am
> >> writing
> >> a xml declaration or a PI.
> >
> > If you write it at the start of an XML document it
> is an XML
> > declaration.
> >
> > If you write it anywhere else it is a
> well-formedness error,
...
> 
> No exactly. According to the spec a <?xml
> version="1.0"?> at the start is
> the XML declaration. According to certain parsers it
> is *not*. If i am

What is pathetic here is that even though you are
rather obviously wrong, you are still trying to win by
using the old "millions of flies can't be wrong --
shit smells wonderful!" argument.

So what relevance does it have if parser documentation
and/or error messages use wrong terminology? Or even
if browser's understanding of what a PI is was indeed
wrong (which it may or may not be -- web browsers
don't care, xml is as irrelevant to html browser
rendering as html is for xml specification).
Either people who wrote those were sloppy, or
misguided; big deal. That doesn't change the
specification at all: with xml, specification is not
just de jure standard: there is no de facto deviation
of it. There is no big schism over "what exactly is a
processing instruction".
The specification very clearly explains what is a PI,
and what is not.

So what next? Will you just google for some more links
where other people were confused by this issue, and
try to claim authority based on sheer number of
confused individuals? (or, more accurately, people who
at one point in time have been confused -- wrt. emails
sent before xml specification was finalized)

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com