This is interesting: Should an XML effort determine a PI that should be
usable in general by SGML documents? I tend to think that the "authority"
that invents/maintains the format of the PI should be identified, and "XML"
sort of fits the bill, similarly to <?SO. We did say that the first name
token in a PI functions as a sort of notation. It would be weird for an
XML spec to specify <?stylesheet .
I've also been beating the drum on the WG list about how our PIs should
have "GIs" as well as "attribute specs," so I'd prefer to see <?XML
stylesheet att1="val1" att2="val2"... ?>. This way, "<?XML" targets the PI
so that it will be processed by an XML-aware processor, and the rest
identifies the semantics of the instruction.
Eve