RE: slides: XML in Browsers
Weirdly or not, if HTML is still dominant, and HTML is an SGML application, then "SGML on the web" is working or at least, it's most successful application is. XML isn't. Or if it is, it's biggest success is in messaging and sending dataGlobs to the transform engine and the local DOM data bucket. Not exactly the results we want here. But not because markup per se is failing. I think possibly because people doing many things don't need it for very much. 1. SMIL: aka, powerpoint in markup. The problem is that people have powerpoint and its toolset and use that for web applications. (I like SMIL in RealPlayer and it is a blast to work with but again, Powerpoint.) 2. VoiceXML. Neat but patent encumbered. It becomes like Flash or PDF: it's owners have to push harder. XML in and of itself has lots of good qualities but in no way guarantees "openness". 3. XML Data islands: standard or not, they work. 4. XSLT: very powerful and much loved, but if one is good at ASP scripting, one has a procedural mindset, a rowset, and a way to transform. It isn't as good as XSLT but 80% of the time, it's good enough. In my experience, adopting generalized markup requires a vision beyond interoperation and portability. One has to be concerned about lifecycle as well and platform independence. Still, see item 2, and realize that markup doesn't guarantee platform independence or reusability except from the point of view of XSLT, and data on the web doesn't have a significant lifecycle yet. The value of the content has to be high. That is why we used it for tech manuals. Yes, the browser framework affects all of this significantly. On the other hand, I'm not sure people will put up with the extra work of using a full-up generalized markup browser as we did in the days before HTML, or that it has much meaning to them given that in such a beastie, one still needs a stylesheet system that takes on all the semantics of any conceivable rendering (eg, real time 3D) with the attendant true extensibility issues where extensibility means extend the framework itself. So plugins and downtranslation are likely to be around for some number of years to come. Just for grins, consider what the classes for a framework would be that could handle any conceivable markup application. What would that look like? Who would be able to code for it? len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] I've just posted "XML sur les navigateurs: XHTML, SVG, SMIL, XSLT et plus" (in English except for the title) on my site: http://simonstl.com/articles/navigateur/ Basically it takes a look at the ways "SGML for the Web" has (or, largely, has not) affected the traditional browser-centered Web. (I gave the presentation at AFNET's Net 2002 conference last week in Paris - http://www.afnet.fr/afnet/net200x/programme.html#T9)
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