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.