Re: Sample Question

Peter Flynn wrote:

> The short answer is that they should never be seeing it, as any
> half-way decent compliant XML editor would be set up to know that
> <SERVER>'s contents must be shielded, and put in the CDATA marked
> section automagically.

Right.  Which makes me wonder why they need the tags there.  I'm 
still reading the LiveWire document.  Perhaps all will be revealed.
> In reality :-) you're quites correct: the browser vendors will simply
> not support syntax that costs them money to program around for no
> obvious benefit apart from the warm fuzzy glow of knowing they conform
> to 8879, regardless of how much easier it might make things in the
> middle or long term.

So it becomes a marketing wedge.  XML evangelists have 
to extol the virtues of having control of the markup even where 
the need to provide a processing specification exists.  We have to 
make these vitues crystal clear.  Use of HTML and server-side 
HTML will continue.  However, once understood, it is possible that 
the customer base will demand XML applications be supported and 
if the browser vendors do not, they lose market position the 
same way Microsoft did temporarily by ignoring the WWW for a 
little too long.

This comes down to running code.  Do not underestimate the power 
of the media to screw this up when prompted by their favorite 
browser vendor.  I hope SGML Open is preparing a blizzard 
of materials.  I also hope the upcoming conference is not 
premature.  Don't blow it with technoSpeak.  The attendees 
do not need to understand delimeters:  they need to see 
how many more things are possible if XML is applied.  If we
can't make that presentation, this is a dirigible in an age 
of jet transport, or will be perceived that way.  The trick 
is to get across the notion that XML has the jet engines.

Ok.  Off list with this one now.