RE: let's specify meaning rather than processing

> I don't think I understand that...

I hadn't read it carefully enough and misunderstood.

>
> > Hold on while I prepare a fox hole to duck into ...
> >
> > What I'd rather have is the url of the transform right there in the xml
> > document,
>
> Rather than what? That's exactly what we're proposing; here's
> the example again:
>
> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
>    xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/data-view#"
>    data-view:interpreter="http://www.example.org/2004/01/svg2dc.xsl"
>
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddl-xml

Much better than I what I thought it said.

>
> >  and I wonder about using the same machanism as browsers use to
> > specify a stylesheet, i.e a processing instruction.
>
> How is a processing instruction easier than an attribute?

I'm not defending it, but it would be a uniform mechanism for all XML
documents.  Its a shame that XHTML is treated differently.  Is the reason
for this that adding the attribute would break the DTD?

Brian