• To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:18:55 -0600

Precisely.  PIs say very boldly and without 
recourse, "this is system information; don't 
bother with me if you aren't that".  

If we attach semantics to namespace names, 
aren't we reinventing PDF (this name references 
this object in this framework)?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]

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

I think it is application specific. It just depends on how you define 
application.

The issue is that if we add an attribute then that attribute must be 
declared in valid documents. We can't just go adding this willy-nilly 
to XHTML or SVG or all the other documents we might want to stick it 
in. We can so add a PI.

This strikes me as very analogous to the existing uses of PIs for 
things like robots, cocoon preprocessing, and stylesheets. It is an 
extra piece of meta-info we want to attach to documents outside of 
the document's normal element structure.

• Prev by Date: Re: Compound processing
• Next by Date: Re: Finally, what if namespaces == document types ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by thread: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread