- From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
- To: xml-dev@l...
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:29:32 +0000
On 22/02/2012 20:30, David Lee wrote:
220256FDE771B74FB662165BC562CF590D44165D@C..."
type="cite">
I
for one have NEVER used a PI nor have ever encountered one
nor have ever found any desirable use for one.
I admit to occasional use of PIs. Here are some of the ways I have
used them:
- metadata in XSLT test stylesheets, where I want confidence that
the metadata will be thrown away by the XSLT processor. I could use
a top-level data element, but that would involve declaring a
namespace, and the extra namespace could in theory disturb the test.
- an alternative to entity references or numeric character
references that will survive XSLT transformation without making the
document DTD-invalid or schema-invalid. Doesn't work in attributes,
of course.
- an instruction to the XSLT processor, like
<?generate-glossary-here?>. Shouldn't this be an element?
Perhaps yes; I'm doing this where I control the XSLT processing but
not the schema/DTD, so it's a form of tag abuse. But it would
probably be wrong to add the element to the schema/dtd, because
there are really two content models here: the "raw" content and the
"preprocessed" content, and the PI appears only in the raw content,
while the schema describes the structure of the preprocessed
content. I'm using a PI so that I can use one DTD/schema for both
content models.
And I would defend it as better than using dummy content like
<div id="glossary">
<head>#insert-glossary-here#</head>
</div>
which I have also been known to do.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
