Re: Processing instructions

James Clark scripsit:

> Supporting PIs anywhere in the data model in a natural way has a huge
> cost: going from two kinds of element content to three and adding a
> separate document node distinct from the root element.  I see the
> simplicity of the data model as perhaps the biggest selling point
> of MicroXML, and I think the cost to the data model of the C option
> vastly outweigh the benefits.

Agreed.

> I also don't buy the idea of adding PIs to the syntax but not to the
> data model: that is cop-out that will confuse users and implementors.

It seems to me that this proves too much.  Why shouldn't comments (which
nobody has proposed putting in the data model) also be excluded from
MicroXML by the same reasoning?  I'd like to see more of your views
on this.

> As between A and B, things are less clear-cut.  But after letting this
> sit for a while, I prefer A.

If PIs-as-comments is rejected, then I prefer A also, but if PIs are not
in the data model, I prefer C.

> If the group goes for B, then I think the least disruptive way to
> support it in the data model is to model the root element as being a
> subtype of a regular element: the root element "is a" element, but has
> an additional property that is a list of PIs.

I agree with that, but it seems that B is inadequate.

-- 
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part          John Cowan
that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part            http://ccil.org/~cowan
that cooks with olive oil, and the part that            cowan@ccil.org
cooks with butter. --David Chessler

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 07:11:26 UTC