[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Associating DSSSL style sheets with documents
Eve L. Maler wrote: > > At 02:53 PM 3/14/97 -0600, Len Bullard wrote: > >Eve L. Maler wrote: > >> > >> > >> The difference is that, by convention, you're making PI markup available > >> that's available to every document and to every *location* in a document if > >> necessary, no matter what its DTD (and no matter whether it even has one). > >> It just happens to look suspiciously like a start-tag, which may be helpful > >> to any software that has to parse the PI string. > > > >By convention? You mean, by application. > > I'm not sure I catch your distinction. If we agree on a meaning and a > syntax for it, we've made a convention. If we agree on a convention, one of us can break it at any time without a serious penalty. If we make a contract, either can enforce it. The PI is a contract. So is the DTD we're trying to avoid with a hack. > But XML doesn't have inclusions, and any one document may not even have > DTDs. So your "ifs" sometimes don't come true. I agree that we don't want > to push legitimate DTD functions into PIs, which give you a lot less > validation power. But processing instructions (in the regular English > sense) don't belong in the normal markup scheme most of the time. Then why are they in the data? Why were they deprecated? What is in the SGML Way that is being overlooked here? Why is it being overlooked? Which is wrong: the SGML Way or the use of PIs? IOW, what the PIs you suggest do is put metainformation inside an instance. Why? What is it they will convey that an XML engine will not already know by reading the specification or could know by reading a DTD? Is the DTD not there simply because members of the Working Group don't want them to be but now can't find a way to get around the functionality they provided? > Well, a reference to a stylesheet is surely a link, but not all links are > references to stylesheets. Also, not all processing instructions are links > to something. Do you think PIs are never appropriate? I didn't say that. I'm wondering why they are suddenly a preferred practice when they were formerly a deprecated practice? What is worse, a DTD I send once and might be very small, or PIs I send every time? len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|