- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:27:52 -0800
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
This anti-PI stuff is all fine in theory, and probably if we thought it through enough we could come up with an alternate theory in which they are just fine (I feel like I did that a year ago, and the year before that, and the year before that). But the main point is that they are extremely useful in *practice* and in my mind, that trumps theory. Jacek Kopecky wrote: > >.... > > You seem to want other processors to be able to ignore your > stuff without harm, but why is the information there if it does > not affect the processor? You seem to assume that every other > processor will ignore your PIs. How do you *know* that the other > processor will not mistakenly process your PIs with unwanted side > effects? As noted before, there is as yet no common namespacing > mechanism for PIs. In theory this is a problem. In practice I've never seen it. Either way, it would be easy to define such a mechanism. xmlns="..." is really sufficient. Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 13:30:59 UTC