[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: Native XML Interfaces

• From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
• To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, "xml-dev@l..."<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:38:41 +0000

Thank you Liam for this opening ;->

> Of course, arbitrary XML in the Web browser was scuppered by 
> . lack of XSLT and JavaScript integration (a W3C #fail, "we didn't do
> APIs")

I agree that programmability of XML without XSLT is difficult.  But it
is (apparently) possible.  And I think many XML devotees would even program in
DOM, if their work was useable in browsers.

However, XLink has hampered adoption just as much as lack of XSLT,
for the reason that a) it is complicated and as len says, authors don't
do complicated unless required by law, 

> . no simple way for web crawlers to know how to index XML 
> documents and produce meaningful snippets (collective #fail) 

and b) as a result of that
XLink complexity XML can't be readily crawled and hence XML, being opaque
to search engines, essentially doesn't exist on the web.

So I renew my Campaign for Real Links TM.  ;-)


> . no way to include JavaScript in non-XHTML XML (financial 
> #fail, because you can't put ads or tracking code in the XML)

Links could be the way.  Why, a browser might be able to rely on
 <link xml:type="application/javascript" xml:href="..."/>

as a way of referencing js from non-HTML.

Regards,
Peter Rushforth

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: Lauren Wood <lauren@textuality.com>
  • Re: Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>