- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 12 Feb 2002 18:46:41 -0500
- To: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:33, Dan Connolly wrote: > What "institutional animus"? Don't lump us all in one pile. > How many "imo"s does TimBL need to use before you'll > let him speak for himself? TimBL didn't need to say anything for me to believe there was an institutional animus at the W3C against processing instructions. I've been told a number of times that this was the 'final W3C word' on processing instructions, though phrased rather politely: --------------- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/ The use of XML processing instructions in this specification should not be taken as a precedent. The W3C does not anticipate recommending the use of processing instructions in any future specification. The Rationale explains why they were used in this specification. --------------- Along with the excuse for using them IN THIS CASE: ---------------- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/#rationale There was an urgent requirement for a specification for style sheet linking that could be completed in time for the next release from major browser vendors. Only by choosing a simple mechanism closely based on a proven existing mechanism could the specification be completed in time to meet this requirement. Use of a processing instruction avoids polluting the main document structure with application specific processing information. The mechanism chosen for this version of the specification is not a constraint on the additional mechanisms planned for future versions. There is no expectation that these will use processing instructions; indeed they may not include the linking information in the source document. ----------------- The animus has also been noted quite regularly on xml-dev. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 17:42:12 UTC