RE: Bad news wrt stylesheet pi in internal subset



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Pieters
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 October 07 11:32
> To: Henry S. Thompson; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bad news wrt stylesheet pi in internal subset


> 
> This is a case I hadn't really considered. I would assume that there
> are
> zero or close to zero pages depending on one or the other behavior
> (since
> browsers disagree), so we're probably free to define whatever makes
> most sense.

I disagree.  Process-wise, I do not believe we can render existing
implementations non-compliant in a change from a 1st Ed to a 2nd Ed.

Also, your talk of browser pages is wrong for two reasons:

1.  there are lots of pages out there that work with one browser
    but not another, so your conclusion that there can't be many
    pages out there like this because they wouldn't work in all
    browsers does not follow.

2.  you're talking about web pages an browsers, but you're 
    forgetting that the whole world is greater than web pages
    and browsers--there are editors and other things that may
    process stylesheet PIs.

> 
> > So if we make the change we were discussing just now on the call, we
> > will render IE non-conforming.
> 
> Whichever of the two options we choose, we render two out of four major
> browser rendering engines non-conforming.
> 
> Personally, I tend to prefer to say that PIs in the internal subset are
> not to be interpreted as xml-stylesheet PIs (i.e. what the current
> draft says), but I don't feel strongly about it.

Personally, if we were writing the first edition, I'd agree,
but at this time, I feel strongly that we cannot disallow
them within the internal subset.

paul

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 16:41:00 UTC