[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
******************************************************

Reply via email to