On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Alex Milowski <a...@milowski.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: > > > > I'm in general in favor of this effort (having worked extensively on > > the existing XML parsers). > > > > But I would caution you that xml is a ridiculously tiny fraction of > > the web. And it may not be worth the engineering effort to make a > > better parser. > > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype:html = 25,270,000,000 > > http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype:xml = 71,000,000 > > > > I can't let this one just pass by! ;) > > First, filetype is by extension and not media type [1]. As such, that > is an incorrect accounting of the amount of XML on the web. Secondly, > just using file extensions, you'd have to enumerate and sum all the > extensions used by all XML media types (e.g. .xhtml, .svg, etc.). > Third, there is plenty of content on the web that Google does not > crawl (the "dark web") where there are petabytes of XML waiting for > browsers to do something with it (e.g. astronomical data cone search > services). > +1. Also, a lot of .asp, .php, etc... files serve XHTML contents. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
