On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 21:02, Don Day wrote:
> I'm not finding great possibilities in my searches either. Unicode
> provides a set of characters that are directives for formatters, but I
> REALLY don't want writers to learn about that Pandora's box. PIs would
> be much easier to detect and handle in processing, particularly since
> they provide an opportunity for conditional use, which a codepoint
> does not. Oh, I'm not convinced yet, just working up the nerve to
> accept the idea.
Are you sure you want to use PI's?
- they cannot be validated by Schema or DTD (during the authoring
process, too)
- if you want to tweak processing of some element, what you do? Insert
PI before, after, or inside? Processing attribute in such case is much
more intuitive, at least with XSLT
- using attribute or element is easier from the authoring perspective:
you can define element specialization and enumeration for the value of
such attribute.
So let us at least consider alternative approach: having special
attribute and/or element, with no well-defined semantics, which should
be ignored by default.
Regards,
-- Paul
