• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• From: "Jason Diamond" <jason@i...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:17:40 -0800
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020123114111.023206a0@p...>

> ><?rddl-doctype href="http://example.org/some-rddl-description.html" ?>
>
> Blecch.  Assuming you believe that this is a good idea, stick it
> in a namespaced tribute required to be on the root element.  Then
> you can get at it through all the existing APIs and address it
> with XPath and so on.


PIs can be addressed with XPath. They can also be retrieved using the DOM or
handled with SAX.

> PIs are for application-specific processing IMHO.  This is not
> application-specific at all. -Tim

Isn't RDDL optional? That means it's an application-specific decision
whether or not it should do any processing based on the resources in the
associated RDDL directory. By using an attribute, you've put this
application-specific piece of data into the content of the document. That
seems way more intrusive than a simple PI.

Jason

• References:
  • Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Better is better
• Next by Date: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Previous by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread