Re: [office] Processing Instructions

[Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

At 12:17 2003 01 28 +1100, Jason Harrop wrote:

>Should our specification state explicitly how compliant applications are
>to handle processing instructions?
>
>I would expect that by default, an editing application should preserve
>processing instructions which it does not understand.  (By contrast,
>when I tested OpenOffice (641 or 643) by manually inserting a processing
>instruction in the content and then opening it in OpenOffice, editing
>and saving again, the PI got removed.)


As Jason implies too, I see no reason an XML-compliant editing application
should remove processing instructions.

However, we first need to determine what kind of conformance section we'd
want in any standard we produce, and then we need to determine if that
section will talk about editing applications or not.  (And I haven't thought
about this, so I haven't formed an opinion yet.)  If we do decide to have
such in our conformance section, then I suppose it makes sense to mention
preservation of PIs therein.

paul