Lists Home |
Date Index |
I believe, one of the main advantages of using XML on the visible web
will be that presentation can be stored elsewhere.
This has many benefits:
1) We can use the same style settings for many documents.
2) If we change our mind about a style setting, we can fix it in one
place, and all the documents will be affected.
3) We can swap stylesheets for different purposes, perhaps having one
for print and another for web pages.
4) The document's content and structure is intact no matter what we do
to change the presentation. There's no way to mess up the document by
playing with the presentation.
5) The document's content isn't cluttered with the vocabulary of style
(font changes, spacing, color specifications, etc.). It's easier to
read and maintain.
6) With style information gone, we can choose names that precisely
reflect the purpose of items, rather than labeling them according to
how they should look. This simplifies editing and transformation.
Above is an excerpt taken from "Learning XML - by Erik T. Ray".
On 7/18/06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Through an "HTML web browser". That is an accident of history. The
> Internet doesn't really care that you use HTML as the containing markup.
> It is the page metaphor triumphing over other modes and means. That can
> change but I don't expect it soon. I do expect it to be relatively
> sudden when it happens.
> It isn't XML that is little used. XML is a syntax and does nothing.
> You have to look for alternative application languages. If you wrapped
> your text paragraphs in say SVG or X3D, you'd have XML being very
> From: Richard Salz [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:46 AM
> > There didn?t seem to be any objection to the assertion that HTML is
> > the primary markup language for the visible Web, and that XML is not
> > appropriate for the visible Web.
> My problem with the assertion is that it seems tautological. It's like
> saying 'most English speakers prefer English' -- if you're defining the
> web through a browser-based (-biased? :) view, then anything other than
> almost-all HTML would be quite surprising.