Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: Don Park <donpark@d...> Not Walter wrote: >>I'm not Walter, but to me this has the obvious advantage that it can >>be used completely orthogonally to the document contents and the >>software used to process the document for non-indexing purposes. > >IMHO, this line of thinking (aka 'sacred content') >forces us to use PI or special attributes for >extension of document instances. Poor use of >the letter 'X' in XML. But thinking (methodology) forces us to have a need; a markup language either supports that need or not. Having PIs does not force anyone to use them. At www.apache.org, the first design coccon uses PIs, the second design does not. The comments are interesting and useful for why, but they also make the same mistake of saying that because they have moved to a system complexity where PIs are not needed, therefore PIs are bad; this is despite them using them in their first system. So PIs, at least, provide an alternative from that many designers find natural. Rick Jelliffe 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
