RE: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

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. My response and that of Joshua is that in such cases you are better off just exposing the XML data you want people to consume without to "noise" of HTML and styling it for Web browsers. This is the ENTIRE point the of why the W3C created XML. This is the only reason XML is a W3C spec. Go read http://www.sun.com/980310/xml/#SGML%20on%20the%20web and http://xml.coverpages.org/burnardBelux0.html#cznk1. 
 
>GameSiteML for game sites, KitchenML for sites on cooking, FridgeML
if I want to browse the content of my refrigerator, AmazonML for the
Amazon homepage, etc.pp. along with incredible amounts of XSLT
transformations so that my mobile phone's battery is empty after
browsing a few sites? 
 
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. Also why do you think your mobile phone would apply the same stylesheets? Do you think an RSS reader viewing Mark Pilgrim's feed actually applies the CSS or XSLT stylesheets each time it fetches the feed? 
 
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. 
 
-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
There are always two solutions to the problem: yours and the boss's. 

________________________________

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
Sent: Tue 7/13/2004 10:00 PM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?



* Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>It seems terribly obvious to me. If you want to make your
>site truly machine friendly then just expose XML and style
>it for Web browsers with CSS or XSLT instead of the gross
>hack of munging everything into XHTML. For example, look
>at Mark Pilgrim's Atom feed at http://diveintomark.org/xml/atom.xml.

That also works the other way round, see e.g. the W3C homepage and
<http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/>. So you are saying that we
should author our web pages using Atom documents that include escaped
HTML fragments? Or are you saying that we should have Atom for news,
GameSiteML for game sites, KitchenML for sites on cooking, FridgeML
if I want to browse the content of my refrigerator, AmazonML for the
Amazon homepage, etc.pp. along with incredible amounts of XSLT
transformations so that my mobile phone's battery is empty after
browsing a few sites? Could you then explain how that is machine-
friendly? Or good for authors?