Do we want the behavior of almost all current XML processing tools to
suddenly become "incompliant"?
Wendell is proposing an application-level house style for use of
processing instructions, a rule for the next level up the protocol stack,
which is perfectly legitimate.
Sorry, this sounds completely not understandable:
1. What is "application-level house style"?
2. What is "a rule for the next level up the protocol stack" ?
And why are we dealing at such a level of detail of a relatively simple
feature, when there are much more serious issues with some specifications,
like being 1100 pages long and probably lacking a single reader who has
read them all and has grasped the intended (???) meaning?
Thanks,
Dimitre
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 12:02 PM Michael Kay mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com <
xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
Do we want the behavior of almost all current XML processing tools to
suddenly become "incompliant"?
Wendell is proposing an application-level house style for use of
processing instructions, a rule for the next level up the protocol stack,
which is perfectly legitimate.
In fact I've heard others propose a stronger convention, namely that
processing instructions should use the syntax of attribute="value" pairs,
as in an element start tag: that's the design convention used for the
xml-stylesheet processing instruction.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--