Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Common XML (was Re: Document Feature Requirements)
 "Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > Beyond that, we're not claiming that comments or processing instructions > should be 'part of the document structure'. What we're saying is that > developers who want to make sure that this information is preserved across > multiple levels of processing will probably have better luck if they create > element structures that perform similar tasks. This is what I don't get. Everyone knows that you don't put data in comments. XML Spec at 2.5 is clear on it. Anyone who knows HTML history or writes JavaScript knows that SSI's use of comment delimiters and Netscapes use of <!-- inside SCRIPT (and STYLE?) elements also abuses what comments do. Everyone who has used a programming language knows that comments don't carry program data but information related to program as source code. If I compile a program and then disassemble it, I don't expect my comments to be intact. If I send my document through XSLT I am happy that the default behaviour is to strip comments: I am generating a new text (new "source code" so there is no reason to expect the comments to be appropriate, by default). I don't want a comment "oops this is a terrible hack, the foo:squidget has to many blort:zzzz subelements" to appear in generated HTML code: it is irrelevent. Have I missed the rise of a group of madmen who, distrusting elements, want to only use comments for passing data around? Why is there a need to make up a problem and then warn about it? It is a little like warning that the use of the number 0 has bad reliability problems because when you divide by it many applications will break: this is no reason to say 0 is "non-core" with regard to reliability. Just use it appropriately. I think there is a difference between "reliable" and "core/peripheral". The latter is defined well by the W3C infoset document: comments are peripheral to the information set. As for what is reliable, it seems that "round-trippable" is being used as the measure, but it is not the same as reliable. CDATA marked sections do not need to be round-trippable to be reliable. It mars what otherwise could be a useful and laudable document. A comment is not something that "makes it difficult to ensure that varying applications will receive the same view of a document." Rick Jelliffe (Please note that Simon is also persuing, through the Web Standards people, attempts to make developers support standards fully. So I hope no-one thinks that he is ignoring the solution of making developers support the XML Spec properly. To use an Australian expression, he is walking both sides of the barbed-wire fence.) *************************************************************************** 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/ *************************************************************************** 
|
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
|
|||||||||
