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

Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))

• From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
• To: <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:14:00 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
To: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@i...>; "Clark C. Evans"
<cce@c...>; "Peter Murray-Rust" <peter@u...>
Cc: <xml-dev@x...>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))


> More than that, there's this bit from the W3C Recommendation _Associating
> Stylesheets with XML Documents_:
>
> >The W3C does
> >not anticipate recommending the use of processing instructions in any
future
> >specification."

That's right, PIs show up in legacy browsers.  Seems like a theoretically
sound reason to forbid them to me ;~)

There's been talk on this list of a "packaging" proposal ... is this more or
less the same idea?  Does it seem like a logical place to put a features
manifest?

Alternatively, Schemas can be construed as a "contract" between producers
and consumers as to what content is allowed/expected/etc.  Would that be a
logical place to put the XFM?  Is there any possibility of getting the
Schema WG to add such a thing to their already crushing list of
requirements?


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))
    • From: THOMAS PASSIN <tpassin@i...>

• References:
  • Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))
    • From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@c...>
  • Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DOCTYPE ??
• Next by Date: SAX2: Please evaluate XMLWriter.java ASAP
• Previous by thread: Re: Feature Manifest
• Next by thread: Re: Feature Manifest (Was:RE: Parser Behaviour (serious))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread