- From: Szabo, Patrick \(LNG-VIE\) <patrick.szabo@lexisnexis.at>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:52:53 +0200
- To: "Hans Franke" <raffzahn@yahoo.de>, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, <liam@w3.org>
- Cc: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, "public-microxml" <public-microxml@w3.org>
In my experience PIs are a good idea as long as they are only used by programs and do not appear just anywhere. I've seen many times that PIs are used to hold human readable content where an element would have been much more appropriate. How about allowing PIs but only on root-level ? That would at least separate them from actual content inside elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developer Patrick Szabo Developer LexisNexis A-1030 Wien, Marxergasse 25 mailto:patrick.szabo@lexisnexis.at Tel.: +43 1 53452 1573 Fax: +43 1 534 52 146 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Hans Franke [mailto:raffzahn@yahoo.de] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012 13:37 An: John Cowan; liam@w3.org Cc: James Clark; Andrew Welch; public-microxml Betreff: Re: Starting point > > And given comments, you pretty much need PIs, or people > > will abuse comments for PI purposes. > I'm not sure it's really an abuse, if you make a comment be > the thing that is asynchronous from the element tree and > unconstrained in location - think of it as a unification. Since the early days of Unix abuses like the well known shebang have been made. And just because everyone does it, doesn't make it a good idea. As for data processing, there is a big difference between comments and PI. A (intermediate) application might very well throw away the human glibberisch called commentws, while it's a good idea to keep PI (even if not understood by the programm) for further stages. So without PIs all comments would have to be always perserved, in case something usefull (beside love letters) is inside. Not a good idea. H.
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 11:53:37 UTC