I wasn't proposing that *XML* define such a PI. All I was just suggesting
was that people who have DSSSL engines implement it (preferably making the
name of the PI configurable).
>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.
I disagree. XML requires that all PIs start with a name, and says that this
name is normally the name of a declared notation. So I think PIs should
look like
<?name att1="val1" att2="val2" ...?>
(Note that the currently-defined XML PI fits this pattern not the one you
suggest.) The authority should come from the public identifier on the
notation declaration for name. Since XML reserves all names beginning with
XML-, I would think that an XML-defined PI should look like:
<?XML-stylesheet type="text/dsssl" href="foo.dsl"?>
James