Lists Home |
Date Index |
> if a resource returned by a URI has <?xml in the document, the
> rules for processing it and returning errors should be clear,
> simple, and enforced by the browser. If it doesn't have that,
> then it is a laissez-faire situation which is what we have now.
> I'm ok with that. If the intent of the author is not made
Well, the "enforced by the browser" is what I'm having trouble with.
Most XML is not intended to be processed by a web browser. HTML is for
rendering in user-agents, XML is for processing by some data interchange
program without even a UI, importing into a contacts database, consuming
in a news aggregator, etc. I think it would be overkill to expect a web
browser to enforce my PurchaseOrder schema just as it would be overkill
to expect the Biztalk app to enforce HTML rules on a payload.
In cases where you have something like VML or SVG which actually *is*
intended to be rendered in a user agent, then I agree. (And I realize
this is your specific case -- I am just arguing against the general
case) But I don't see why an actual HTML *envelope* would have to be
<?xml...?> in order to embed payloads that were intended to be pulled
out and parsed with an XML processor. I think something like the <xml>
tag hack that IE uses is just fine, and it would be ideal if all XML
payloads such as SVG and VML are embedded in HTML 4.x using this
convention. You could additionally stipulate that the browser should
enforce wellformedness inside the <xml> tags. That would be a good
convention and would deserve support, IMO.