Yeah I noticed this one with interest too - Forget the fact that we are talking about any specific products here & just bear with me for a minute....
- User decides to be smart & "upgrade" his site to XHTML. - User thinks that XHTML is just the logical progression from HTML and does not feel obligated to ensure that his content is well formed & valid (apart from running it through the validator a couple of times during the design stage). As far as he is concerned it looks cool in his browser so it must be all right. - XML software comes along and tries to parse the documents as XML (Verity has excellent XML support & some cool features for workign with it). - XML software skips over invalid documents & writes error to obscure log file - User is left with the feeling that something is broken somewhere but has no idea where to start looking (image the user doesn't even have access to the system logs). Moral to the story - don't go around calling a spade a long bit of wood with a metal thing on the end. Its either XML or its not, if you & your authoring tools are not up to the task of create XML that is going to be consistently valid & well formed, don't use it. If you just slap an XML stamp on your tag soup you are asking for pain and doing a disservice to Internet in general. Its either XML or its not. Sorry for the rant, but I've finally found a perfect, real life, working example for something I've had a "gut feel" about for a while. The guy is proudly displaying his W3C Valid XHTML tag too - http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ferdia.org%2Fblog%2Findex.cfm%3Fdata%3D20040526 Cheers Mark ********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
