[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Processing Instructions
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC