[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: What is W3C's official position on use of PI?

  • From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liamquin@i...>
  • To: xml-dev@i...
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:01:05 -0400 (EDT)

processing instruction position
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Paul Prescod wrote:

Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:
> Don Park wrote:
> > Thanks for clearing that up.  Do you what the folks who "regard PIs as
> > problematic second-class syntax" recommend for first-class out-of-band
> > signaling mechanism?  I wouldn't mind giving up PI if there was an
> > alternative.
> Well, Liam Quin has been a constant critic of processing instructions.

Heh... I always wanted to be remembered for something :-)

> http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/archive/msg03388.html
> http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/9811/0203.html

Well, if you read these -- especially the second -- you'll see that
they are not arguments against processing instructions.  The 2nd
article argues against using a processing instruction to link a
document to its style sheet in a way that was incompatible with
the then current XLink draft, and also incompatible with the DOM.

> [Paul's] response:
> http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/archive/msg03396.html
> As I said in that message, the important thing about processing
> instructions is that they are invisible to content models.

Yes.  This can be good and bad.  There's been a tendency in the SGML
world to use them like significant comments -- if you've ever seen a
large document with <?Pub Stuff> scattered all over it, you'll know
what I mean.  The usual reaction is that people in such environments
write scripts to remove all the processing instructions.

> If XML Schemas
> invented a way to make elements invisible to content models (like SGML's
> inclusion exceptions, but maybe only allowed at the top level) and a way
> to add these inclusions to existing schemas easily then processing
> instructions could be replaced by these "floating", element types. That
> would be neat.

I agree, and in some ways this could be where namespaces go, I think.

> But if there are no floating element types then we still need processing
> instructions.

Well, you don't need them in a formal sense, but I agree there there is
very strong motivation for them :-)


Liam Quin, independent SGML/XML/Unix/perl consultant
l i a m q u i n     at    i n t e r l o g    dot   c o m

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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.