• To: jenglish@f... (Joe English)
• Subject: Re: Processing instruction guidelines
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:36:21 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200301232355.h0NNtMr27783@d...> from "Joe English" at Jan 23, 2003 03:55:22 PM

Joe English scripsit:

> > Despite the fact that the XML Rec. suggests using notations to specify
> > the legal names of PIs, I haven't actually seen that in use. Anyone
> > think that it's good practice?
> 
> I've never seen the point.  The only data associated with a 
> NOTATION is the system identifier (which is useless)
> and public identifier (also useless).  

The point is to allow you to use any PI target you want by binding it
to a URI or FPI, kind of like namespaces do with prefixes.

-- 
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme):  jcowan@r...
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically   http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time.     --robison who's at texas dot net

• References:
  • Re: Processing instruction guidelines
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Next by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: Re: Processing instruction guidelines
• Next by thread: Re: Processing instruction guidelines
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread