btw... to be perfectly clear, your statement includes the word "consumers" which, if thought of in terms of the end user, then in fact your point could be seen as valid; or in other words "It should be the end users choice to use the internal viewer, or the directives set forth by the author.
However, the implication is not that "consumers" refers to end users, and instead applications, in this case, Internet Explorer.
If, in fact, what you mean by this *IS* that its the end users choice, then I would tend to agree... as long as the option exists. If there is no option provided, and simply "its our way and only our way... deal with it" then we will be left to deal with it just as mentioned: find legal ways around the system, and publishing/promoting these work arounds via the various means that the folks who feel such information is necessary to promote have at their disposal. I know at least a couple hundred folks myself that I know would be happy to publish such information as long as this information stayed within the confines of the end user and developer licensing agreements. Which it would.
On 3/9/06, M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When you provide information in an XML format, you're providing information, not a web page. You may desire to have it rendered a certain way when it's rendered by a web browser, but the consumers of your data can do whatever the heck they want with it. <<I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you have just stated suggests that its not at all up to the consumer how he/she wants to view a particular file, and its not up to the author of that content either. While you are correct that it is up the the client application to determine whether or not to render a feed based on a PI directive, when the existing version of that software chooses to render the file based on the directive, and in the follow-up, that capability that has become common place suddenly disappears, that presents a problem.
The way to solve this problem is not to hand the controls over to MS and suggest that "hey, do whatever you want, whats important is that you're happy" and instead "you've supported this feature now for over 5 years. People expect this capability to work. If the developer specifiies a separate xml-stylesheet PI, whether that be CSS or XSLT, then one of two things should happen:
1 - Respect the directive, and use this instead of the internal rendering engine.
2 - Render the feed with the internal rendering engine, but provide a clearly marked message, and link that will allows the user to choose the directives as the author specified to be used, and then to make this the default selection the next time this file is accessed.
If we do not send a clear message to Microsoft that its *NOT* okay to simply ignore the specified directives, choosing instead to render them however they might see fit, then whats next... should they ignore imported CSS or _javascript_ files, or rewrite these files to a language/markup/scripting language of their own choosing/preference?
BTW... the correct answer should not be an argument suggesing that the specifications for these technologies do not allow for such optional behavior, therefore my point is null and void. The reason is not an attempt to be disrespectful to anyones opinion (if in fact this were their opinion) and instead to stand firm that its not about optional or required, and instead about consistency, and common sense.
"[The] doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim."Mr. Justice DOUGLAS : UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY et ux. Decided May 27, 1946Original source and link: Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture : Introduction : Paragraph 6 : http://libreria.sourceforge.net/library/Free_Culture/intro.htmlThere are justifications and reasons why an application, for example, an XML development tool; should ignore these directives. To require that an application MUST adhere to the directives set forth would obviously be a bit silly when an application is designed for developing/editing instead of rendering. IE is a rendering tool. It renders content specified by the author of that content. To suggest that MS should be given the freedom to take control of a document and disregard that in which they have consistently supported for 5 years, without even so much as offering a choice, is both assanine and ludricous.If this is to be the chosen course, then what will end up happening is that MS will be placed on the Top 1 most wanted list, again, after working as hard as hey have to try it improve their image. What will also happen is that folks, like myself, will find legal ways around the system in which they have chosen to implement.As such, theres not a whole lot of point in creating bad publicity for something that will simply be circumvented and implemented as the author original specified.Is there?
On 3/8/06, David Nesting <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> On 3/8/06, James Yenne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My counterpoint is that this is non-standard approach because the
> xml-stylesheet directive is a standard XML directive, and IE7 (the reader,
> not the browser) is essentially saying that RSS/Atom are not first of all
> XML and should be handled in some proprietary way through IE's
> display/navigation layer.
> >
>
>
> I'm going to have to side with Microsoft on this one. When you provide
> information in an XML format, you're providing information, not a web page.
> You may desire to have it rendered a certain way when it's rendered by a web
> browser, but the consumers of your data can do whatever the heck they want
> with it. The use of xml-stylesheet is not actually part of the proper XML
> standard and there is no requirement that any implementation honor it. It's
> merely a suggestion.
>
> David
>
> --
> Apologies in advance if this e-mail messes with your clients. This is my
> first post to the list using Gmail and I'm not entirely sure how
> mailing-list-friendly it is.
>
>
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
