Re: Why not PI's?
Paul W. Abrahams writes - > > I see PIs as something you wish to pass on to a particular processor or class > of processors. My sense of the matter (admittedly, unsupported by any > documents I know of) is that they are, or ought to be, inessential to the > general interpretation of a document. In other words, a well-formed and > valid document ought to remain well-formed and valid if all PIs are omitted. > > Examples of PIs would be an indication that the following space character > should be non-breaking or that a page break would be desirable at this > point. These would be "tweaks" in the form of typographical hints, quite > possibly particular to a specific version of a document typeset with one > specific typesetting program, e.g., TeX. With these kinds of usages in mind, you could consider PIs to be a different kind of markup superimposed on a marked-up text. For example, an XML document that contained RTF would have two more-or-less orthogonal markup systems imposed on the underlying text. PIs are orthogonal to the rest of the XML markup. So in a way, PIs represent a little bit of some undefined orthogonal markup system. The XML provides the structural markup. Furthermore, the PIs do not produce a self-delineating structure, which again is quite different from (the rest of) XML. Mabe this is the basic reason why so many people are uncomfortable with PIs -they appear be be from a different, undefined system. Cheers, Tom Passin
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