Hi George,
Thanks again for your quick response.
In a perfect world, there are no lock-ins. If Oxygen were to create
a specific PI (like Firefox recently added parameters to the
xml-stylesheet PI) is would become a lock-in and people don't like
that. Of course, a PI is harmless if nothing is done with it, but
still.
Things will get worse if other companies start to use their own PI.
And even more worse if, when you run a transform, the PI is
automatically added (Altova). I dislike that very much and that is
one (of many) reasons why I didn't stick to that product.
However, a PI is nothing more than a name and a string. How
difficult would it be to make it a setting, say, something like:
PI name for test xml: 'test-xml-input-file'
PI test xml tokenize regex: \s+
then the PI would look like this:
<?test-xml-input-file sometestfile.xml ?>
This would give the end user all ways to use its own custom methods.
Note that when you would want to impose a "standard", you cannot
start the PI with 'xml' without the consent of W3C (they are
reserved).
Cheers,
-- Abel Braaksma
Hi Abel,
I see what you mean. I read the message too quickly and I thought
you
were referring to the xml-stylesheet PI.
I do not see any difficulties to implement this similar with the way
we
implemented the xml-styelsheet PI support. However, it will be great
if
instead of an oXygen specific PI we would be able to use something
more
generic.
I am curious how much interest is in having such a PI. I remember
that I
was pro having a PI to associate a Relax NG schema with an XML
document
and there was a strong reaction against making a proposal for such a
PI
on the Relax NG list. So what people think about such a PI?
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--