Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Eve L. Maler wrote: > > > The difference is that, by convention, you're making PI markup available > that's available to every document and to every *location* in a document if > necessary, no matter what its DTD (and no matter whether it even has one). > It just happens to look suspiciously like a start-tag, which may be helpful > to any software that has to parse the PI string. By convention? You mean, by application. An inclusion on root makes an empty element available to every location. A PI is something every document has to have. That isn't an improvement. If you use a DOCTYPE and know the DTD, don't you get the same effect? XML goes out it's way to load up an instance just to get around a DTD. I question the utility of that. We tell them they are being freed of fixed markup, then add a question mark and say, oh, that's OK, that's XML. > I don't think links in general should be done this way, but I do believe in > PIs being used for, uh, instructions to processors. Ummm... sure. Sort of what links are. > (In other words, I'm > not 100% against PIs, as some people are.) In particular, I'm starting to > get very fond of PIs for anything that has to be specified per entity. No doubt. len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
