On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Robin Berjon wrote: > > The fact that the people that defined XML in the beginning called PIs > > "hints" is irrelevant. XML processing has grown far beyond what was > > originally envisioned. That terminology and method of thought originated in > > the world of document management and styling, not application type > > processing. > > But tell me, why should I not care about what the people that originally > defined XML thought, yet care about what you and some others think ? ;-) > > I don't disagree with the fact that you're free to use PIs whichever way you > want. In fact, that is precisely what I defend. If _you_ want to use PIs as > class declarations (something that wouldn't even cross my mind, I'd use > namespaces for that) then fine, use them as such. I want to use Processing > Instructions to.... give instructions to a processor. I tell my browser or > SVG viewer (or whatever renderer) that it ought to use CSS file foo to show > the file: "Process it thus". If another processor comes along (say, one that > extracts all the info I've hidden outside the SVG namespace in my SVG file) I > don't want it to see the PI, or to care about it. Similarly, if I have a view > source in my SVG viewer, I don't want it to try to style what it's showing me > :-)
OK guys, this is drifting way off topic now. Can I kindly suggest further discussion on this is redirected to xml-dev? Thanks! (oh, and maybe someone could just implement AxIgnorePI for me, it's really not that hard) -- <!-- Matt --> <:->Get a smart net</:-> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
