• From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:28:36 -0600

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> > I like the idea of the
>  > processing instruction.  Although it seems that it should be
>  > a standardized one (e.g. <?xml:docclosed ...?>) that all
>  > parsers can look for.
>
>  I'm afraid I find this all completely bizarre.

Heh, it was your idea...

>  I thought the days when you
>  put "****" at the end of a data file because you couldn't rely on the I/O
>  system reporting that you'd hit the end of your reel of paper tape were gone
>  about 40 years ago.
>

For modern file systems it does seem a little belt and suspender like.
 However, when you start playing with AJAX fragments being sent out
over random Internet connections I can see why some people might think
they need this.   It's not going to cost that much, you can ignore it
99.9% of the time.  Is there any harm in it?

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

• References:
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: COUTHURES Alain <alain.couthures@a...>
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>