Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, David Brownell wrote: > What you're suggesting is that PIs be lexically scoped. > (That's what Andrew seems to mean by "tree" scope.) Especially "local". The "requirement" that had to be met, apparently, was that the syntactic device announcing a "local" lexical scope had to be "locally" available itself (thus ruling out, e.g., stuff in the internal subset that would be indefinitely "far away".) > And in fact, there's nothing in the world preventing the definition of > a particular PI from using lexical scope. One doesn't need all PIs to > work that way; only one. Yes. There are only two natural scoping constructs in XML: elements and marked sections. There was no consensus on how MS syntax could be extended (if at all), so the issue effectively became one of working with the element structure. A PI pointing to an ID could have been enough. > I've no intention of reopening the debate on this topic (we're stuck > with attributes), but I've got this strange belief that truth should > be told, so I couldn't let this one slip by. On the archive we've been refered to for the details, it was quoted: "The making of laws, and of sausages, should be hidden from children" Arjun 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...)
|
