[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Here are my opinions..
On 7/16/06, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
> QUESTION #1
>
> Which assertions do you accept, and which do you reject? For those
> assertions you reject, why?
> ASSERTION #1
>
> There is little usage of XML on the visible Web.
I agree. Today large amount of data seen on the visible web is
produced as HTML. Normally, data authored as XML is displayed on the
visible web, when that XML is produced by applications (and need to be
shown on the web), and not produced by humans directy for e.g. using
the XML editors.
>
> ASSERTION #2
>
> There is not the necessary "critical mass" of browsers which support the
> styling of XML using either CSS or XSLT.
I disagree. Today browsers that people use to view content on the
visible web, would normally support CSS and XSLT. Refering to this
study -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers, today
IE has the leadership in user penetration (it commands > 80% of the
share). and IE supports these standards.
>
> ASSERTION #3
>
> Advantage 1 listed above is a myth, i.e., <grocery-list>, <fruit>, <meat>,
> <vegetable> is not more "semantically rich" than <ul> and <li>. In fact,
> the opposite is the case. The tags <ul> and <li> have clear semantics
> (i.e., an unordered list of items) that are understood by every browser on
> the planet. Conversely, <grocery-list>, <fruit>, <meat>, <vegetable> have
> vague semantics, are understood only by English-speaking people, and
> probably zero applications on the visible Web would be able to do anything
> useful with the tags or the data within the tags.
>
I agree to this.
> ASSERTION #4
>
> Advantage 2 listed above is also an advantage of HTML, i.e., the data is
> contained in an HTML document and the presentation instructions are
> contained in a separate CSS document.
>
I agree to this.
> ASSERTION #5
> XML is not appropriate for the visible Web. XML will continue to have
> limited usage on the visible Web. As Len Bullard says, "XML is plumbing".
>
I partially agree, and partially disagree. When XML is produced by
applications at backend, and need to be shown on the browsers, then it
has to be shown. There is no other option to it.
But I would not like to author web content as XML directly. Having
worked on Microsoft environment a lot, authoring HTML is as easy as
typing a word document.
> ASSERTION #6
>
> On the visible Web, HTML will continue to be the primary markup language for
> the foreseeable future.
I agree to this.
>
>
> QUESTION #2
>
> Suppose that you are in charge of a Web (you control the funding of all the
> Web sites). Would you issue this mandate to all the Web site developers:
> "All information on the visible Web must be in XML"? If you would issue
> this mandate, why?
If I am in charge of web, I'll not issue such a mandate. I'll prefer
that all information on the visible web to be as HTML (till the time
all browsers implement XML standards consistently).
>
> QUESTION #3
>
> Do you think that XML should have a more prominent role on the visible Web?
> If so, how would you stimulate greater usage of XML on the visible Web?
>
Definetely, XML should have a more prominent role on the visible web.
This is in the interest of interoperability of information.
Regards,
Mukul
|
