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

Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"

• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:12:37 -0500

/ "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> was heard to say:
| In other words, elements, attributes and namespaces are here to stay,
| whereas DTDs, entities and PIs are transitional, and are on the way out.

I've never understood the animosity expressed against processing
instructions. Yes, it's dumb to use them for important structural or
semantic information, but it's handy to be able to give a specific
processor a specific instruction:

  <?myprocessor myhack="yes, please"?>

What are the alternatives?

1. Structured comments?

   <!--#if myprocessor then myhack="yes, please"-->

   Shudder. No. Please. Not now, not ever.

2. Oddball namespaced elements and attributes?

   <my:processor myhack="yes, please"/> or
   <someelement myprocessor:myhack="yes, please"/>

  Those just aren't appropriate. For one thing, the document may not
  allow my oddball namespaced things at those locations.

3. Namespaced PI targets. I suppose this would be handy, but I don't
   think it's going to happen.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@E... | The stone fell on the pitcher? Woe to the
XML Technology Center     | pitcher. The pitcher fell on the stone? Woe
Sun Microsystems, Inc.    | to the pitcher.--Rabbinic Saying

• References:
  • RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Next by Date: RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Previous by thread: Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Next by thread: Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread