- From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:58:08 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 10:46 1997 05 16 -0400, Steven J. DeRose wrote: >At 07:30 PM 05/15/97 -0500, Robert Streich wrote: >>Should the internals of PIs be structured? No. Leave them alone. If we > >I tend to agree, but with 2 small exceptions: > >* I think the idea of requiring them to start with some kind of a >domain/owner label is useful and not overly restrictive: it helps prevent >conflicts between different customizers (note "helps" -- not totally solves). > >* I also think it could be useful to create a convention or rule for how to >put PIC in your PIs; just because otherwise everyone has to invent it all >over again (I actually think SGML should have allowed character references >or at least > inside PIs, but it didn't). I agree in general. And as Lee points out, nothing prevents anyone from using > in the content of a PI. Since XML already says > shall be used to escape the > in "]]>", I would propose the XML lang spec explicitly say that > shall be used to escape the > in "?>" in the content of PIs. (And with any luck, people wanting to escape the > in the content of a PI in an SGML document using just ">" for PIC will follow suit and use >.) paul
Received on Saturday, 17 May 1997 21:01:45 UTC