Re: Processing instructions

On 06/09/2012 05:08, James Clark wrote:

> If PIs are not in the MicroXML data model, then that implies, in my
> view, that normal (non-markup sensitive) applications SHOULD NOT act
> on PIs.  But that is clearly not what we want. For example, we would
> want a browser to act on an xml-stylesheet PI.
>
> James


I'd agree with that if microxml were being defined in isolation but we
can't really ignore xml.

I would (I think, today at least) be happy for a microxml editor to see
the microxml syntax including PIs and so allow me to write

<?xml-stylesheet

or whatever.

I would also be happy for a _microxml_ application to treat that as a
comment and not see it.

If I serve that document to a browser I think it most unlikely that the
browser will have a microxml processor, it will use its xml processor
which _will_ see the PI as part of its information set (DOM or whatever
they want to call it).



Thus allowing PIs in the syntax but not the data model allows a microxml
editor to insert a few xml features into a document in a way that is
ignored by a pure microxml system.

That doesn't seem to me to be a totally bad thing,


David


________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 09:30:01 UTC