- From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:48:41 -0400
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 07/25/2012 07:57 AM, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 25 July 2012 12:52, Szabo, Patrick (LNG-VIE) > <patrick.szabo@lexisnexis.at> wrote: > >> 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. >> > That doesn't meet the various needs of PI's that I have seen? > I guess any feature can be abused, is that a reason not to include it? > In my limited experience, PI usage could have be handled equally well in some other way, like: <processing-instruction name="foo" content="bar" />, or with some special purpose tag like: <page-break num="11" /> Possibly excepting the root-element PI, which has been granted special meaning by (some?) browsers. I feel certain there must be some reason people are torn up about the idea of losing these, but I don't know what it is? Could I ask for a short list of existing PI use cases that might need to be grandfathered in? Is it just that existing content with PI's would have to be converted to some other style in order to be rendered as uxml? Or is their some intrinsic virtue of PI's that I don't see? -Mike
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:49:42 UTC