W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2002

Re: PIs considered harmful Was: XML-SW, a thought experiment

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:01:06 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020213085434.03d30648@localhost>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "www-tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Simon,

I think there is a big difference between abolishing PIs
(as suggested by Tim) and not (anymore) using PIs in
W3C Recommendations. I personally hope that, as indicated
in the xml-stylesheet recommendation, no future W3C REC
will ever need to use them. As to whether to actually
completely abolish them or not, I haven't made up my mind,
but I guess I agree with Dan, and would even go one step
further in saying that the cost of even worrying whether
we should abolish them or not may be too high.

Regards,   Martin.

At 18:46 02/02/12 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:33, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > What "institutional animus"? Don't lump us all in one pile.
> > How many "imo"s does TimBL need to use before you'll
> > let him speak for himself?
>
>TimBL didn't need to say anything for me to believe there was an
>institutional animus at the W3C against processing instructions.
>
>I've been told a number of times that this was the 'final W3C word' on
>processing instructions, though phrased rather politely:
>
>---------------
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/
>
>The use of XML processing instructions in this specification should not
>be taken as a precedent. The W3C does not anticipate recommending the
>use of processing instructions in any future specification. The
>Rationale explains why they were used in this specification.
>---------------
>
>Along with the excuse for using them IN THIS CASE:
>----------------
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/#rationale
>
>There was an urgent requirement for a specification for style sheet
>linking that could be completed in time for the next release from major
>browser vendors. Only by choosing a simple mechanism closely based on a
>proven existing mechanism could the specification be completed in time
>to meet this requirement.
>
>Use of a processing instruction avoids polluting the main document
>structure with application specific processing information.
>
>The mechanism chosen for this version of the specification is not a
>constraint on the additional mechanisms planned for future versions.
>There is no expectation that these will use processing instructions;
>indeed they may not include the linking information in the source
>document.
>-----------------
>
>The animus has also been noted quite regularly on xml-dev.
>
>--
>Simon St.Laurent
>Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
>Errors, errors, all fall down!
>http://simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 19:01:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT