Re: FW: VoiceXML 2.1 and PI issue

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:59, Brad Porter wrote: 
> Oops, let me clarify.  I think the write up below is my best attept to
> date to explain the choice of the PI.  The PI seems the most
> appropriate feature of XML for our use case, so some understanding of
> why it is best not to use the PI would be valuable so I can articulate
> that to the working group.  I look forward to your full review.  

Yes, I didn't give much reason for not using a PI.

One important reason is that namespaces don't apply to PIs.
Dave gave another: the DOM doesn't give access to them.

[[
Good practice: Namespace adoption

A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all
element names and global attribute names in a namespace
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-namespaces

> Also, is there an XML 1.1 deprecated or "not recommended" features
> list?

I'm not aware of a list, just the one note about PIs:

"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."
  -- http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/




-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part