[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web

• From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:54:27 -0800

On Dec 13, 2010, at 01:25, David Carlisle wrote:

> On 13/12/2010 03:15, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The script element in thehttp://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml  namespace has already been implemented. How would a new processing instruction be better?
> 
> XML is designed (mostly) not to use fixed element names. If you are styling xhtml, xhtml:script is OK, but if you are styling docbook, or some personal xml vocabulary or anything else other than xhtml, then adding a processing instruction will maintain the validity of your source, but adding an xhtml:script will not.

It seems to me that editing your .rnc is easier than getting everyone who already implements script in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace to implement a new PI.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

• References:
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@prodigal.ca>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Doug <doug.duboulay@gmail.com>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
  • Re: RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>