Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Real XML Site
 From: Eric van der Vlist > Tim Bray wrote: > > Probably Dynabase, just like infoworld.com; it's the only product > > I know of that serves HTML pages with the .xml extension (a practice > > that seems more than a little weird to me). -T > > Most of the XSLT servlets are doing so, at least in their basic > configurations. > > As Didier mentioned, the source document is really a XML document that > is transformed on the server. ... And I agree with Tim. This *is* weird. ( And I was stupid. I'm blaming myself here, because Hiawatha also returns html result of server-side XSLT rendering when receving request for some.xml ). But there is some twist with Hiawatha. Because most of links from outher space to my site are .html ( and because I'm trying to keep the legacy of my URLs so that people will not get 404 from my site ever ), Hiawatha also got a URL rewriting layer. I think in 'ideal world' URL rewriting should be a *practice* not the exception, so that just looking at some URI we can see what will be a mime-type of the response.... for example ... Well ... and maybe we can also get some other information from the URI ? I mean, for example, what protocol will be *acepted* by that URI ? Oh, no.... Let's face it. URI is very important chunk of the information. I wish some day we'l get some *recommendations* for *possible* patterns to use in URIs. I'm talking about the soft *recommendations*. I'l be strongly against W3C *restricting* URI string in any way. But I feel some need in recommendations. For example, when I was hacking XT to understand document( "/! sql request here" ), I got a feeling that the freedom with URIs is not actually good. For example, the "/! " signature was kind of unavoidable, because of some Java restrictions. I mean that some recommentations for 'custom' URIs will be more forgiving to the legacy code than others. Also I think that it was not so important when every server were HTTP and every content was HTML. The era of HTTP / HTML-only Web is gone. I think we should start thinking in terms of many protocols and many mime-types. > It can be seen as weird, but not more that serving HTML documents with > .php or .asp extensions since in this case it's also the result and not > the source that is sent to the browser. I think this practice exists only because there is no simple and clear URL-rewriting layers in most of the HTTP servers I've seen. I think situation is somehow similiar to HTML. What you ( and many others, including myself ) are saying : "URI is confuizing? Big deal - it works" , is in fact close to saying : "HTML is not well-formed? Big deal - it works". Rgds.Paul. PS. Oh, gosh. It comes to the basics again. "What is URI" ? "Why namespaces are using URIs - is it really reasonable?" 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
