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

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

From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:58:08 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970517081604.0068bc8c@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 10:46 1997 05 16 -0400, Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>At 07:30 PM 05/15/97 -0500, Robert Streich wrote:
>>Should the internals of PIs be structured? No. Leave them alone. If we
>
>I tend to agree, but with 2 small exceptions:
>
>* I think the idea of requiring them to start with some kind of a
>domain/owner label is useful and not overly restrictive: it helps prevent
>conflicts between different customizers (note "helps" -- not totally solves).
>
>* I also think it could be useful to create a convention or rule for how to
>put PIC in your PIs; just because otherwise everyone has to invent it all
>over again (I actually think SGML should have allowed character references
>or at least &gt; inside PIs, but it didn't).

I agree in general.  And as Lee points out, nothing prevents anyone from
using 
&gt; in the content of a PI.  Since XML already says &gt; shall be used to
escape the > in "]]>", I would propose the XML lang spec explicitly say that
&gt; shall be used to escape the > in "?>" in the content of PIs.  (And with
any luck, people wanting to escape the > in the content of a PI in an SGML
document using just ">" for PIC will follow suit and use &gt;.)

paul
Received on Saturday, 17 May 1997 21:01:45 UTC

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