[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo scripsit:
> 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.
The implicit assumption here is that HTML is just a presentational
wrapper that creates a document around non-document data. As someone
who is concerned to represent data that *are* documents by nature (news
articles), XHTML is an excellent vocabulary for doing so, as the documents
aren't complex enough to justify DocBook or TEI. (And XHTML 2.0 is even
better: simpler, more orthogonal, less concerned with presentational
artifacts.)
The only real annoyance is that I have to pretend my clean
machine-processable XHTML documents are just any old HTML, due to the
unwillingness of your company's browser team to take the trivial steps
required to cope with it in its native dress.
--
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face cowan@ccil.org
softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son http://www.ccil.org/~/cowan
of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can http://www.reutershealth.com
save you, I will." --LotR Book I Chapter 10
|
