- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:06:00 +0100
- To: public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 25 July 2012 13:48, Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net> wrote: > 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 As with comments, I'm in favour of losing both, having seen how simple element syntax could suffice. I've added both to the issues list. My preference is for losing both DaveP -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 13:06:33 UTC