The party line on <?xml version="1.0?> is that this isn't a PI because we
constructed the XML definition of a PI to not include the use of 'XML' in
the target/name and we called this thing that looks like a PI the "XML
declaration". Seems like a smoke screen to me to hide the anti-PI arguments
in this case!
************
Dan Vint Lexica LLC
Sr XML Analyst (415)901-3623
http://www.lexica.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:38 AM
> To: Murray Maloney; Christopher Ferris
> Cc: Matthew MacKenzie; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Miller, Robert (GXS)
> Subject: RE: FW: Latest Specification document
>
>
> This arguement about using a different PI than the XML spec defines is
> ludicrous. There are so many dependencies on the <?xml
> version="1.0?> PI
> both within the XML spec and within XLink, XQL, XSL, XSLT and
> almost every
> parser built that we cannot even consider this.
>
> This should be the end of this thread.
>
> Duane Nickull
>
