[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: limits of the generic
Rick Jelliffe writes: > > Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing > > perfect XHTML 2.0 without tools? > > Does anyone *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing > well-formed XML for casual content when forgiving old HTML is > available? Not "Joe Website", as John Cowan defined it, but there definitely is a category of people for whom well-formed XML or XHTML is in fact quite convenient. "Dynamic HTML" is much easier stuff to write with well-formed HTML, as browser-related vagaries about the tree structure are abolished, and the same applies to CSS. On XHTML-L, there are a fair number of people teaching HTML (J. David Eisenberg, Molly Holzschlag) who have reported that it's easier to teach people XHTML, in part becase of its clearer rules for how elements work. For beginners, clarity may matter more than forgiveness. Beyond casual content, I'm aware of a number of projects which have at least partially hand-coded XML feeding into transformation systems producing multiple output styles. I suspect that's a good market for the Topologi Editor, in fact! All that said, I'll admit to having doubts about the importance of well-formedness, but suspect that's just a side effect of writing a parser. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
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
|