Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is HTML structured or unstructured information?
- From: Mukul Gandhi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DxXOuFyqE6iurvbLMyoqckv4dfeBKa1l0pYr6Ibif/j2WUilJld42zaVnIGe5A0XOMRmoZO1LpKNz3GWSdzp5nvQV1zuAPO888h5GCwLrehvupTaQhN+n/e8UrRCiptQCENujHamOm4j6iIPu93nUbdbq5lDTbABOCvujzijI2w= ;
- In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07207237@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
> Your experiences are much the same as mine.
> As Tim Bray says, View Source is a primary reason
> However, back on topic: as pointed out by others,
> might be called semi-structured, but I think the
> concept of structure is misleading because markup
> is structured by definition. OTOH, even highly
> structured XML can be quite meaningless which is
> why for XML and HTML work wonderfully well for the
> humans and vary a lot for computers. Best practices
> cover some but not all of the gaps. In my opinion,
> naming is a harder and more important practice to
> master than structuring. In many cases, when markup
> fails semantically, naming is at fault. Naming is
> Best practices for naming are even harder to come
Since HTML is a presentational vocabulary, it is flat
namespaced, where XML is hierarchically namespaced.
Would this mean HTML will be un-structured as reasoned
by me earlier? And XML will be structured. But I agree
with you on the point that HTML can be treated as
Is this topic worth discussing? HTML is so popular and
beautifully nice, that we should just use it :)
Probably we should discuss more about XML on xml-dev..
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around