Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Peter Flynn wrote: > >But... they're called Processing Instructions! > > A historical curiosity. It refers to processing the document *after* > SGML > has finished with it (eg typesetting). Can they now be considered semi-deprecated? > >....but PHP just happens to use that syntax for compatability, you > can just as > >easily write: > > > ><<?php echo $element_name?> foo="bar"> > > Content! > ></<?php echo $element_name?>> > > But then you have invalid markup, which is both useless and pointless. It's messy, indeed. > >because it finds the <?php with a state machine that traverses the > script. > > No, because PHP neither knows nor cares about preserving > the non-PHP parts of the document. That's the cause, I explained the effect :-) > ><title>How I Made <typesetting-hints:linebreak />A Million Dollars</title> > > > >....suits me more :-) > > That is perfectly possible, but it requires adding to the DTD or > Schema if > one is in use. The whole point about PIs is that they are NOT part > of the > structure of the document. In TEI I often use <LB> for linebreaks > because > it *IS* part of the document structure when you are encoding the > typographic > appearance of a historical document. When the linebreak is merely > incidental > to the appearance on a current occasion, a PI is more appropriate. If they're not described in the DTD/Schema they can't be validated and nice XML editors can't suggest which ones are legal in any situation. Is this wise? > > ///Peter > ABS
|
