- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:29:29 +0100
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
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