[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Because the question you are asking is, will this make everyone happy,
and I can only answer, it should with respect to ubiquitous view source
given losslessness. I added the rest to point out that is only part
of the consideration for the binary because there is a significant
set of people who don't want their code to be view sourced, and performance
is one concern. Yes, these are separable issues.
It answers the view source issue as long as the viewers in a sufficiently
large number of cases produce precisely the same XML display. This goes
to the 'lossless' issue, I suspect, and to the 'provable code' issue.
len
From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@mclink.it]
> I don't think view source is the whole issue, but it is a
> significant one to a
> large and equally important community: authors/programmers.
That does not answer my question.
My question was whether the "view source" requirement would be satisfied if
Fast Infoset viewers became ubiquitous.
If some author/programmer is currently using the MS XML 1.0 viewer built
into IE as their "source viewer" (as opposed to using Notepad), what
difference would it make to him if he had to use a FI viewer instead of the
MS XML 1.0 viewer?
(I know one of the possible answers - If the document is broken, the guy
will have to use Notepad! This is not an answer that would satisfy me,
though.)
|
