• From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:25:06 +0100

On 13.12.2010 15:15, Michael Kay wrote:
> On 13/12/2010 09:25, 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.
>>
>
> Perhaps something in the HTTP header would be even better than a
> processing instruction, as it would avoid disturbing the XML content
> entirely.

Such as the Link header (RFC 5988), maybe with a new link relation?

Best regards, Julian

• References:
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Doug <doug.duboulay@g...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>