Re: Element Structure for XML (Clause 7)
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:15:21 +0000, firstname.lastname@example.org (James Clark) wrote:
>> From: Charles@SGMLsource.com (Charles F. Goldfarb)
>> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:12:26 GMT
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:37:04 +0000, email@example.com (James Clark) wrote:
>> >> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 17:32:16 CDT
>> >> From: Paul Grosso <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >> Fourth, I still just don't get it. What's so hard about PIs?
>> >One thing that's hard is the rules about how REs adjacent to PIs are
>> I may be embarrassing myself here, but aren't markup declarations and PIs
>> treated eqivalently?
>Yes and included elements too. I'm hoping we can find some way to
>avoid them all in mixed content or at least circumscribe their use so
>that the RE handling is simplified. If we didn't have PIs, we would
>be one step closer to this. But maybe we can't manage without them.
I knew you know that, but the context of the discussion was whether comment
declarations couldn't do what PIs do. My point is, that's no improvement. If the
objective is DTDless parsing, the real problem isn't PIs but included
subelements. Without the DTD, there is no way to distinguish them from proper
The net is that this is really a problem with RE handling, not with PIs per se.
Charles F. Goldfarb * Information Management Consulting * +1(408)867-5553
13075 Paramount Drive * Saratoga CA 95070 * USA
International Standards Editor * ISO 8879 SGML * ISO/IEC 10744 HyTime
Prentice-Hall Series Editor * CFG Series on Open Information Management