|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Using processing instructions as transaction semantics
* Chris Barney | | What does the group think of using processing instructions as | transaction semantics vs. using elements Processing instructions sound like the wrong thing to me. They are mainly for things that do not fit in any schema/DTD, but rather cut across all schemas/DTDs. The xml-stylesheet PI is a typical example. Another (although rather ugly) example might be the PI used by a certain SGML editor to indicate where the cursor was. The name processing instruction may have lead you astray here, since it does not refer to transactions or anything like them. Instead, processing instructions were originally intended to be used in SGML documents (where all presentation had been stripped in favour of structure) for those cases where presentational hints to the formatting software were needed. With time they have come to be used as a sort of generic ignorable syntax extension, and that is what they should really be regarded as. If you can use elements or attributes, don't use processing instructions. | Does either approach have noticeable advantages/disadvantages? PIs have the disadvantage that they live outside all schemas and DTDs, which means that you cannot constrain their use except through the use of BNF and prose. --Lars M. *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








