New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Where do we say that processing-instructions are ignored #445

Closed
xml-project opened this Issue Jul 11, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@xml-project
Contributor

xml-project commented Jul 11, 2018

In err:XS0079 we say, that processing instructions are not allowed as siblings of implicit inlines.

But: Where do we say, that they have to be ignored in all other places? Both XMLCalabash and MorganaXProc do this, but I can not find this rule in the specs (neither 1.0 nor 3.0).

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ndw commented Jul 11, 2018

I don't think we have to. They don't have any semantics except those that an application gives them. A processor only ignores the ones it doesn't understand.

The p:inline case is special because (a) the PI is being "quoted" and (b) it's ambiguous.

@eriksiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

eriksiegel commented Jul 12, 2018

I agree with Norm.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

xml-project commented Jul 12, 2018

I agree with Norm to, but I wonder whether we should state this rule somewhere in the specs, to prevent a processor from following another rule like:
I will raise an error for every processing instruction I do not understand.

@eriksiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

eriksiegel commented Jul 12, 2018

We don't have to. Its a basic XML thing.

Analogy: We also don't specify that processors have to ignore XML comments...

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

xml-project commented Jul 12, 2018

Its a basic XML thing.

This is exactly my problem: I was not able to find this rule in the XML specification. Where to find it?

@eriksiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

eriksiegel commented Jul 12, 2018

Hmmn, you're right. https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-pi does not explicitly say "Ignore unless you recognize the PI" (and that's how I've always understood a PI, I suppose everybody?)

So yes, maybe a little reminder in the spec about this (although probably superfluous)?

@ndw ndw self-assigned this Nov 6, 2018

@ndw ndw closed this in #628 Nov 6, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment