[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some other method.] You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about 15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to people doing this but I would not waste CPU cycles for this.
[Lachlan wrote: ...it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools] Now, let's have a race; I'll write code to convert XHTML to HTML using XML tools and you write code to convert HTML to XHTML using SGML tools. Sorry, I'm kidding; just wanted to illustrate the ease of use of XML tools over SGML tools :-) [Lachlan wrote: I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.] Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com -------- Original Message -------- From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 12/3/2005 11:25 PM > Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: >> User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so >> trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is >> content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data >> because it is not easily parsable from a content management perspective. > > Yes it is, it just requires SGML tools, instead of XML tools. This all > comes down to using the right tool for the job. > >> Content written in HTML cannot easily be re-purposed. If you have >> 1,000 documents and you want to change some markup in all of them, it >> is very difficult to do this if these documents are in HTML. If the >> documents are in XML (XHTML), then this is a trivial task using >> off-the-shelf technologies like DOM/SAX parsers or XSLT. > > The same is true of HTML, it just requires that you use SGML tools to > process it, rather than XML tools, and SGML tools have been available > for much longer than XML tools; they're just not so widely deployed > because HTML is rarely treated as an application of SGML anyway. > > Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML, it's also > trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some > other method. > >> So we need to start writing content in XML and if it's content >> destined for the Web, then XHTML is perfect. The next step is: if you >> write it in XHTML, then why not serve it in XHTML (even if right now >> it's still processed by some current browsers as HTML). > > Such use cases require XML tools, with a CMS that uses such tools to > guarantee well-formed input and output. It also requires that the > author be competent enough to develop and test and a completely XML > environment, even if it's delivered to the world as text/html. > > I do agree that XHTML on the back end does have significant authoring > benefits for those experienced and competent enough to do so, but we're > talking about beginners who are unlikely to have such tools at their > disposal and are extremely likely to be developing and testing in an > HTML environment. As I have said many times, learning XHTML that way is > not a good idea, and it is the responsibility of those of us teaching it > to make sure it is learned correctly, not incorrectly as you seem to be > pushing. > > Additionally, how many commonly used, off-the-shelf CMSs that claim to > output XHTML as text/html, or in fact any CMS regardless of its output, > actually make use of XML tools? WordPress certainly doesn't, it uses > string substitutions and doesn't guarantee well-formed output, as do > others such as MovableType, Blogger, etc. > > I challenge you to name several readily available off-the-shelf CMSs > that actually do make use of XML tools. As of yet, I have not found any > that do, let alone guarantee 100% well-formed output. > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
