W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Serving generic XML (was: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue?)

From: <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200208190659.XAA18109@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, www-style@w3.org

Andrew wrote:
> In a message dated 18/08/2002 22:34:11 GMT Daylight Time, ian@hixie.ch writes:
> > > By pure XML, I meant "make up your own vocabulary as you go" rather 
> > > than using something that's been defined for you. 
> > You should never, _ever_ send arbitrary markup in a language you made up
> > over the network (unless you have full control over the target UA).

> Ian,
> Presumably, then, you are wholly antagonistic to one of the foundational 
> goals of XML 1.0 (at least as I understand it):
> "Its goal is to enable generic SGML to be served, received, and processed on 
> the Web in the way that is now possible with HTML."
> I had read that statement as indicating a commitment/ambition to processing 
> "generic" XML across a global network in a new-generation browser 
> environment. Which, it seems, you now assert should "never ever" be done.

There are serious accessibility problems with sending "pure XML" even
if you send a style sheet along with it.

At the current time, it is not advisable at all to send "pure XML".  It
may become so in the future, but XML technologies are still very far away
from that.  You need a working, reliable, ubiquitous, standards-based,
accessible "Semantic Web" to pull that off, and such a thing is barely
conceived of, let alone implementable.

So I agree with Ian's statement about not sending arbitrary "pure XML"
markup to the UA.  There's no reason to ever do so.

Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 02:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:03 UTC