[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTM
It seems we violently agree. If all you want to do is publish human readable content on the Web then use HTML. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM There are always two solutions to the problem: yours and the boss's. ________________________________ From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@g...] Sent: Wed 7/14/2004 12:01 AM To: Dare Obasanjo Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML? * Dare Obasanjo wrote: >The only major benefit people have been able to point to for moving to >XHTML is that it makes it easier to screen scrape your site since one >can use XML tools like XQuery, XSLT, DOM, SAX, etc. The major benefit, in fact, the only benefit that has been and can be pointed out is the syntax as it is so far the only difference between HTML and XHTML if you ignore Ruby. Screen scraping is just one of the many things that are easier with XHTML documents. >Yes. Why shouldn't each site provide me with pertinent data in the >format that is most useful to it instead of adding the extra envelope >of HTML. woerue rwr iuwehr wrq webr lqwheri kwsdhfsk jdhffsjhdfk hdkfjjf llfsldkfsf a lskjdhfl akshdf8 azfos dhfdlf ashdlfkjahs dfhla sj skjdhf sdfh8 wzere lfjlsjdhf lsdf lkasdjfl jhasldfjh lasjdf lsa ksjdflhasjhdfl jhalsdf878 sfdnsdkf lksdflasjhf 8fosdf kkk kfdf. Well, that's written in the language that is most useful for it. Oh, wait a second, it is not. Since you cannot understand it. Just like a search engine does not understand how to discover links in AmazonML or like a Voice Browser does not understand what would be the content it should read out in FridgeML or like an A11y tool does not know how to skip a section in KitchenML. Or like the Web authoring software that does not know anything about GameSiteML and would thus have a hard time to assist you. Universal Access depends on semantics, which is something that does not exist per se, but rather exists through agreement among communicating parties. You would probably have a hard time to convince Google to adopt the MarkUp Language you have just invented for your homepage. You might however consider it useful for your content to be available to Google users, so your just invented markup language might not be as useful for your content as you initially thought. But tell me please, why would I invent my own markup language rather than using XHTML 1.0 and some class attributes? As far as I can see, the only difference would be syntax, so your XML+XSLT+CSS thing's only use case seems to be ease of screen scraping, or whatever you want to call it. And as that is not a good enough to switch from format A to B, I still fail to get your point. >If you just want presentation, use HTML. If you want to provide >data for others to consume mechanically then provide them with >XML data that best meets their needs instead of munging it into >some frankenstein HTML envelope and sprinkling the XML magic >pixie dust over it and calling it XHTML. Probably, but why would you deliver such data to web browsers? We are talking about web browsers here, aren't we?
|
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
|