Re: First Editors' draft of XML Stylesheet PI 2e

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:57:56 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:20:29 +0200, François Yergeau  
> <francois@yergeau.com> wrote:
>
>> Simon Pieters a écrit :
>>> Could you elaborate on why you think this would be better?
>>
>> The stated intent (para just above section 4) is to make the definition  
>> of "Processing instructions with pseudo-attributes" (hereinafter PIPAs)  
>> reusable by other specs.  But such other specs may not want PIs that  
>> are not PIPAs to be ignored, they may want them to be treated  
>> differently or whatever.
>
> Ok. Maybe we could make the PIPA algorithm either return a list of  
> pseudo-attributes or an error.

This has been done.


>> In fact, thinking about it more, it seems that this is also what we  
>> want in this spec.  We want to provide a way to recognize (and act  
>> upon) certain PIs, but we certainly do not want to force user agents to  
>> ignore any other PIs.  Yet, as the draft stands, it appears to force  
>> user agents wanting to claim conformance to this spec to completely  
>> ignore any PI that is not a PIPA, anywhere in the document. We should  
>> be careful to say something like "...must ignore for purposes of  
>> stylesheet linking" or something like that.
>
> Indeed.
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software