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

[<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>]

bryan rasmussen said:
>> <quote>
>> Actually, no: the XML declaration isn't a PI <they refer here to the
>> formal spec/>. But in most cases it really doesn't make any difference
>> whether it is or not, so feel free to look at it as one if you wish.
>> </quote>
>
> I believe this is addressed to the mythical average developer who
> cannot be counted on to understand the difference between these
> things, pragmaticism is a wonderful tool for calming the average
> developer. If you consider yourself to be mythical, please be so
> calmed.

This is a bit elitist, is not?

>> <quote>
>> Trying to get the text of the XML declaration from an XML parser. Some
>> parsers erroneously treat the XML declaration as a PI, and will pass
>> it on as if it were, but many will not.
>> </quote>
>>
>
> thus, because people sometimes do things incorrectly the incorrect way
> is the correct way.

We live in an imperfect world. Do you know?

Moreover, i would add that whereas it is true that sometimes the cause of
the trouble is on an (imperfect) developer, it is not less true that
sometimes, the developer had *no option*; probably, because the formal
spec done by a 'theoretician' was not implementable in practice.

MathML is a good example. I have heard many developers claiming
difficulties or imposibility to implement the formal spec in a _full_ and
_consistent_ way and i got problems also in that way.

My last notices is that even elementary stuff as <mi>sin</mi> will be
promoted to radical change in next MathML 3 draft because initial design
errors of the group did MathML 1.0.

Therefore the spliting between 'correct' and 'incorrect people' is a bit
more complex is being said here and now.

> Bryan Rasmussen


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)