> Charles Frankston wrote:
> > The ns, prefix, and src parameters to a namespace PI look a lot like
> > attributes (although they are not in a formal sense). Since =
attributes in
> > XML do not have to be in a particular order, it would certainly be
> > surprising for people to discover that attributes in a namespace =
have to be
> > a particular order. You're suggesting that the syntax be made =
harder to use
> > in order to make the productions easier to author. I think this is =
a bad
> > tradeoff.
>=20
> Note that the XML declaration has a required order of pseudo-attribute
> occurrence. It would be best if the XML-family of language were
> consistent.
>=20
> [23] XMLDecl ::=3D '<?xml' VersionInfo EncodingDecl? SDDecl? S? '?>' =
=20
Chris has a point, but my intention was to make the production easier to =
read=20
(benefits the user), not write (benefits the writer). I've been wading =
through=20
a lot of specs recently and I tend to appreciate anything that =
simplifies them. =20
Maybe I'll change my tune when I'm further along the learning curve, but =
right=20
now, the added flexibility on an instruction I won't use much (even if =
all my=20
XML documents use namespaces) isn't worth the added complexity.
-- Ron Bourret