Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Eric van der Vlist" <email@example.com>,"Jeff Rafter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly lessverbose (andeasier to author) XML)
- From: "Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:16:57 +0200
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcIcmTZrfRfZ02y4QxupTsTmHfjrdQAANXn9
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly lessverbose (andeasier to author) XML)
Plain XHTML shouldn't count as real XML, yes. RDF Site
Summary is a pretty popular real-life XML format and
has heaps of potential.
XHTML 1.0 is a transition. I blame no one out there for taking
WFness and validity not too serious if they don't get anything
for it (Rick Jeliffe's point I presume).
But soon I can e.g. write an XHTML page that contains three
XForms that reference three RSS XML instances from three
domains - a hub document that lets me see on one page
what my three favorite sites are up to. No XSLT, no server-side
All this will only work if the XHTML document is well-formed.
In contrast to XHTML 1.0 this is new functionality.
If the RSS app described doesn't sound like it would be
attractive enough to learn, I'm happy to expand the
"what cool new stuff has to come in order to make
Joe HTML want to really learn and use XML" thread. But I do
believe that it may happen rather sooner than later.
The X-Smiles Browser  which has the best XHTML
and XForms support so far lets you see  the RSS example
and what future versions of XHTML could offer to the
average web developer.
This is something we will have to live with for a long time, to
acknowledge and to accept.
As Rick Jelliffe was saying these are situations where well formed is
too much and validity if too little for which we need to develop better