Re: [xml2rfc] XInclude should be used instead of PI include

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

As I understand it, the design intent of v3 was to replace all PIs with grammar constructs because that then enables independently developed code using standard XML tools. For example, XSLT based transformers. 

As PIs are not recognised in v3 I think it would be a mistake to add them back. 

On the documentation point - it’s hard to know how far to go in documenting things that are standard features of XML processors, such as checking the local directory/cache for includes, but it seems clear we should err on the side of adding as much as info as possible. 

-- 
Jay Daley 
IETF Executive Director

> On 27 Jun 2023, at 06:05, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 27. Jun 2023, at 06:54, Kesara Rathnayake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm under the impression that we need to move away from using PIs.
> 
> PIs are great for doing things that are instructions on the processing.
> (They are not so great for the actual content of the document.)
> Compare pragmas in programming languages.
> 
> There used to be a feature that could be invoked like this:
> 
> <?v3xml2rfc silence="XInclude should be used instead of PI include" ?>
> 
> I can’t get this to work though with 3.17.4.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc