OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?
  • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:12:22 -0700
  • Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Thread-index: AcRpcHXrvCD2bMvqQ2KoA17rVgbGAAAPB7cY
  • Thread-topic: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?

It seems we violently agree. If all you want to do is publish human readable content on the Web then use HTML. 
There are always two solutions to the problem: yours and the boss's. 


From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
Sent: Wed 7/14/2004 12:01 AM
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:
>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.

The major benefit, in fact, the only benefit that has been and can be
pointed out is the syntax as it is so far the only difference between
HTML and XHTML if you ignore Ruby. Screen scraping is just one of the
many things that are easier with XHTML documents.

>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.

woerue rwr iuwehr wrq webr lqwheri kwsdhfsk jdhffsjhdfk hdkfjjf
llfsldkfsf a lskjdhfl akshdf8 azfos dhfdlf ashdlfkjahs dfhla sj
skjdhf sdfh8 wzere lfjlsjdhf lsdf lkasdjfl jhasldfjh lasjdf lsa
ksjdflhasjhdfl jhalsdf878 sfdnsdkf lksdflasjhf 8fosdf kkk kfdf.

Well, that's written in the language that is most useful for it.
Oh, wait a second, it is not. Since you cannot understand it.
Just like a search engine does not understand how to discover
links in AmazonML or like a Voice Browser does not understand
what would be the content it should read out in FridgeML or like
an A11y tool does not know how to skip a section in KitchenML.
Or like the Web authoring software that does not know anything
about GameSiteML and would thus have a hard time to assist you.

Universal Access depends on semantics, which is something that
does not exist per se, but rather exists through agreement among
communicating parties. You would probably have a hard time to
convince Google to adopt the MarkUp Language you have just
invented for your homepage. You might however consider it useful
for your content to be available to Google users, so your just
invented markup language might not be as useful for your content
as you initially thought.

But tell me please, why would I invent my own markup language
rather than using XHTML 1.0 and some class attributes? As far
as I can see, the only difference would be syntax, so your
XML+XSLT+CSS thing's only use case seems to be ease of screen
scraping, or whatever you want to call it. And as that is not
a good enough to switch from format A to B, I still fail to get
your point.

>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.

Probably, but why would you deliver such data to web browsers?
We are talking about web browsers here, aren't we?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS