W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: FW: VoiceXML 2.1 and PI issue

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:56:03 -0500
To: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, MattO <matto@tellme.com>, 'Michael Bodell' <bodell@tellme.com>, www-voice@w3.org
Message-Id: <1097610963.30433.3.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:59, Brad Porter wrote: 
> Oops, let me clarify.  I think the write up below is my best attept to
> date to explain the choice of the PI.  The PI seems the most
> appropriate feature of XML for our use case, so some understanding of
> why it is best not to use the PI would be valuable so I can articulate
> that to the working group.  I look forward to your full review.  

Yes, I didn't give much reason for not using a PI.

One important reason is that namespaces don't apply to PIs.
Dave gave another: the DOM doesn't give access to them.

[[
Good practice: Namespace adoption

A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all
element names and global attribute names in a namespace
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-namespaces

> Also, is there an XML 1.1 deprecated or "not recommended" features
> list?

I'm not aware of a list, just the one note about PIs:

"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."
  -- http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/




-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 19:55:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:00 GMT