[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bill Kearney wrote:
> I'd also like to see an valid explanation of this so-called 'toxcitity' some
> folks wave about.
Bill, feel free to say what you mean by 'valid'. But to be honest I
feel the same way. For example I'm still waiting for a valid
rationale for namespaces ;)
> At several points _in_the_past_ some tools have had major
> problems dealing with namespaces properly. This is no longer the case.
Tools have never been my beef with namespaces (and the open source
ones you can go ahead and fix). I welcome any tools that help me
deal with them. Just yesterday my manager and I were talking about
how to create tools to do just that. For the record my beef is their
value (or cost, whichever). In my experience that has been precious
little despite blanket assertions to their usefulness. Namespaces
seem to incur a cost greater than not using them; it's a bit like
paying through the nose for insurance, only one that you never
needed because you never had anything you needed to insure. I hope
someday we'll start to question namespaces the same we're starting
to question WXS (or any sub-optimal XML technology). But, perhaps my
XML work is an anomaly, and they are really needed. I hope your
mileage varys.
> And making the transition to XHTML for content is a HUGE change. Many tools do
> not properly emit XHTML. This goes back to the excuses the namespace naysayers
> have likely used.
Intriguing. Goes to back to what excuses?
> But at the present time XHTML isn't a reality for most
> content producing environments. I'd certainly /like/ to use it but the tools I
> have at my disposal don't make it very pleasant.
I hear you. I have two immediate uses for XHTML, one nasty, one
reasonable.
1) it makes screen scraping and ad-hoc transforms simpler,
2) I could use PUT and DELETE in an XForm. Only GET and POST are
allowed in HTML - >Doh!<
Bill de hÓra
|
