Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 13/12/2010 22:54, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Dec 13, 2010, at 01:25, David Carlisle wrote: > >> On 13/12/2010 03:15, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> The script element in thehttp://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace >>> has already been implemented. How would a new processing >>> instruction be better? >> >> XML is designed (mostly) not to use fixed element names. If you are >> styling xhtml, xhtml:script is OK, but if you are styling docbook, >> or some personal xml vocabulary or anything else other than xhtml, >> then adding a processing instruction will maintain the validity of >> your source, but adding an xhtml:script will not. > > It seems to me that editing your .rnc is easier than getting everyone > who already implements script in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml > namespace to implement a new PI. > You asked how it would be better and I think that's the main difference. (Although it wasn't my suggestion initially). Also of course a PI could be placed in the most logical place at the start of the document, whereas you'd have to extend every xml format to allow xhtml:script somewhere within the document, and then have that script affect the rendering of the whole document. Counting is also a rather subjective buisness, but I'd have thought there were actually rather few people who implement xhtml:script (with a lot of users) Actually you presumably (if using xhtml:script) wouldn't change the schema and wouldn't add it inline to the document, you'd always end up having an initial html file with (just) the script that loaded the xml and transformed as required. David
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
