- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:57:56 +0200
- To: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
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. > 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 Thursday, 17 September 2009 08:58:44 UTC