Conal Tuohy wrote:
Stefano wrote:
The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster of it via XSLT)
And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda like scripting aren't they)
It's also potentially useful for validation.
Nop, wrong. There is no XMl validation language that can tell you if the sitemap is "valid" from a cocoon-logic point of view (for example there is no "class file name" datatype, or no way for the XML validator to know that that class is inside the classloader).
You can validate the "xml structure" but the semantics of that will have to be validated by special code anyway.
Another thing I like about XML sitemaps is that you can load them in a
browser and use + and - buttons to reveal only the sections you want.
True.
The fact that XML is a common syntax means that there will always be new things you can with it.
FS. This was the argument in the past and it never happened.
Personally, I like it as XML. :-)
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like it... but many times it felt just too verbose for the task... so it would be kinda cool to have the ability to have two syntaxes.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
