• From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@e...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:03:31 +0100

>if you use an attribute-like syntax [for Processing
Instructions]
>then at least you may have a fighting chance that future
common
>tools will be able to examine them and use them.

>But, of course, piggy-backing PIs onto elements using
attributes
>is probably always a preferable option...

That gives me the opportunity to ask a question that's been
bugging me for a while.

I'm designing a document type. Is there any circumstance
when you would advise me to use a Processing Instruction
rather than an empty element with attributes? I can't think
of one myself, but I'm sure the XML designers must have had
something in mind.

Mike Kay


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Processing instructions (was XSchema: Sections 5.0 and 5.1)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
  • Re: Processing instructions (was XSchema: Sections 5.0 and 5.1)
    • From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSchema: Sections 5.0 and 5.1
• Next by Date: Re: text editing controls (ActiveX)
• Previous by thread: Re: xml schema -> DTD
• Next by thread: Re: Processing instructions (was XSchema: Sections 5.0 and 5.1)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread