• From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:15:49 +0000

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.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Doug <doug.duboulay@g...>

• 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...>