W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: PIFLE (was Re: Are PIs useful?)

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:18:46 +1000
Message-Id: <199705150018.KAA20788@jawa.chilli.net.au>
To: "Paul Prescod" <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
> From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>

> ... I *would* support a more formal notation syntax for
> PIs to avoid namespace pollution, but I *would not* support a fixed
> syntax to make them easier to parse. Let the applications specify the
> syntax (beyond the notation declaration). If it encourages people to
> avoid them, great!

If we make PIs hygenic, we needn't encourage people to avoid anything.
They can stick PIs in for every specific target, without stuffing up their 
document's portability, as they see fit.

An example use for formal PIs is documents-in-progress. Editor settings, 
revision control numbers, etc, are all things that should be accessable 
in the grove, even if they are only to be used by the editor application 
& not the browser.  At the moment, they get plonked with a wink in 
comments or in elements.

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 20:18:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC