Subject: RE: [xsl] document() function and error-handling From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:18:55 -0500 |
Would there be any reason *not* to include an <?xml-result?> PI in the result document? As I understand it, this sort of thing is what PIs were designed for.
(And is it an XML faux pas to start the PI with "xml-"?)
The PI begins with a target (<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-PITarget>PITarget) used to identify the application to which the instruction is directed. The target names "XML", "xml", and so on are reserved for standardization in this or future versions of this specification.
Just wondering if extraneous PIs in transformation source/result documents are considered good coding convention or not. It'd be nice to actually make use of them from time to time.
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Scott Trenda | Thread | RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Scott Trenda |
RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Scott Trenda | Date | RE: [xsl] document() function and e, Scott Trenda |
Month |