- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:14:49 +0100
- To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:57:56 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:20:29 +0200, François Yergeau > <francois@yergeau.com> wrote: > >> Simon Pieters a écrit : >>> Could you elaborate on why you think this would be better? >> >> The stated intent (para just above section 4) is to make the definition >> of "Processing instructions with pseudo-attributes" (hereinafter PIPAs) >> reusable by other specs. But such other specs may not want PIs that >> are not PIPAs to be ignored, they may want them to be treated >> differently or whatever. > > Ok. Maybe we could make the PIPA algorithm either return a list of > pseudo-attributes or an error. This has been done. >> In fact, thinking about it more, it seems that this is also what we >> want in this spec. We want to provide a way to recognize (and act >> upon) certain PIs, but we certainly do not want to force user agents to >> ignore any other PIs. Yet, as the draft stands, it appears to force >> user agents wanting to claim conformance to this spec to completely >> ignore any PI that is not a PIPA, anywhere in the document. We should >> be careful to say something like "...must ignore for purposes of >> stylesheet linking" or something like that. > > Indeed. > -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 09:15:35 UTC