Subject: RE: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and other options From: "Chris Bayes" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:09 +0100 |
Mike, Hey don't worry. I don't think anyone is having a go at you. Just discussing. I disagree with you but we can do that on this list without anyone getting the hump. I think pi's are the way to go because they are hints to the application on how it should process the data. I agree that there could be a lot better framework to handle all of theese multiple file situations but we don't have one. For schema they use schemaLocation which does adulterate the xml whereas a pi is just a hint and comes in the preamble before the data proper. Ciao Chris XML/XSL Portal http://www.bayes.co.uk/xml > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Brown > Sent: 26 June 2002 11:02 > To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > Subject: Re: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and other options > > > David Carlisle wrote: > > > such as when you've got no problem with the fact that your PIs > > > might be ignored - > > > > Not agreed. saying that an application might ignore a PI is > like saying > > that an application may ignore <security level="top > secret"> and publish > > the information on the web. It's true, whatever the syntax is used, > > elements, PIs lisp, ... it requires applications that read > the syntax > > and implement the specification of that syntax. > > Definitely not agreed. > > 1. An application is not required to take action on any > processing instruction. The XML spec only requires that the > application be > made aware of the instruction's existence. > > "PIs are not part of the document's character data, but must > be passed through > to the application. The PI begins with a target (PITarget) > used to identify > the application to which the instruction is directed." > > (It is also suggested that you should use a Notation name as > the target, so > that your PI is essentially able to reference an application > by a URI through > that name) > > It is reasonable to infer from this that it is not even a > requirement for > an application to care about xml-stylesheet or any other > target that it > doesn't recognize. > > 2. The semantics of the xml-stylesheet PI are that there is > an association > made between the XML document containing the PI and the > referenced stylesheet, > nothing more. There's no requirement that an application > processing the XML > divine the intent behind the association, or take action upon > it. So even if > you feel that (1) is not true and that a PI can't be ignored, > honoring the > xml-stylesheet PI is pretty much a no-op, if the application > wants it to be. > > > > when they're being applied to tie data to business logic; > > > aapplications shouldn't be forced to fit the PI model. > > > > so business applications shouldn't specify their input > using say dtd or > > schema either both of which are only optionally read by a > minimal XML > > application (which needn't implement XSLT either). > > I don't follow exactly, but I think you're comparing apples > and oranges. No, > it's not harmful, but my argument can be applied here as well. > > I as the XML document author "shouldn't" assume, just because > I've referenced > a DTD or schema, that my application will receive validated > input from the > parser! Yet that's what I want/expect, so I've effectively imposed a > requirement on the application developer to ensure that the > application only > gets its input from a validating parser. > > Even so, if I reference an external DTD or an XML Schema in > my XML document, > it does indeed come with a risk that it won't be processed > (didn't someone > recently say that Mozilla isn't reading external entities?), > so I have to take > that into account when I write my application. I certainly > can't expect that > my XML document will dictate that the application be smart > enough to use a > validating parser or a parser that resolves external entities. > > > Accepted that a lot of XML travels over the web in machine > to machine > > communication, for serving of XML over the web to browsers for human > > consumption, I'd say the PI is currently the only option available. > > (There are other options, such as server side > transformation, but tehy > > don't involve serving XML over the web) > > Those other options often do involve an HTML user-agent > requesting XML, > though, and getting back HTML. So while raw XML wasn't served, XML was > requested, and a server-side application decided that the > request should be > interpreted as a request for the data within that XML, > formatted in a manner > more appropriate for that particular client. As I keep trying > to say, this > kind of decision and the determinations that go along with it > (such as what > the client's capabilities are and what an appropriate > transformation would be, > if any) is for the application to make. These needs are not > very well-met by > the PI approach at all. > > <sourGrapes> > > I'm very sorry I pushed this thread in this direction. I feel > that I made the same statement as Michael Kay has made on the > list more than > once, even very recently -- that the xml-stylesheet PI and > the paradigm it > currently imposes (which is highly dependent on assumptions > made about what > clients will do) was generally not a good way to isolate data from > presentation. > > Wendell Piez didn't disagree but challenged me to summarize > what some of the > alternatives were, so I started to list them but kept getting > caught up in > trying to (over-)explain under what circumstances you'd want > to use those > options. I finally posted my take on the situation, my > rationale for believing > xml-stylesheet is harmful, and why I felt so strongly about > it. My rationale > may not be the same as M.H.Kay's, but it led me to > approximately the same > conclusion. Yet now I have nary a sympathetic ear, and Kay > hasn't offered his > 2 cents at all, so I look like an idiot and a troll. > > </sourGrapes> > > - Mike > ______________________________________________________________ > ______________ > mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/ > denver/boulder, colorado, usa | resume: > http://skew.org/~mike/resume/ > > > > > XSL-List info and archive: > http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and o, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and o, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and o, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] xml-stylesheet p.i. and o, David Carlisle |
Month |