- From: Leons Petrazickis <leons.petrazickis@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:23:00 -0500
On 3/9/07, ryan king <ryan at theryanking.com> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:09 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > > > ... > > > > Amen. > > > > It's really amusing to see people continuing to trot out > > matter-of-fact statements dismissing XHTML. Those statements seem > > to fall into two basic types that can be paraphrased as either: > > > > - The only people who author documents in XHTML are naive > > developers/designers who do it just because they have been > > mislead into thinking that it's the cool/right thing to do. > > > > - The only people who user/serve-up XHTML are pedants who are > > out of touch with browser/implementation realities. > > > > It seems to me that those who make such statements either: > > > > - are unaware of any useful things that can be done with > > documents other than just displaying them in browsers -- or > > about how having those as well-formed XML can potentially make > > it easier to process them > > > > - have an agenda that makes them (consciously or unconsciously) > > want to dissuade others from using XHTML/XML (and XSLT, etc.) > > and to instead use alternatives (whatever alternatives they > > happen to personally be promoting) > > Or they realize that even those who (1) know what they're doing and > (2) care, still get things wrong: > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//people.w3.org/mike/ > > -ryan > > PS - my homepage is invalid, too: http://validator.w3.org/check? > uri=http%3A//theryanking.com/blog/ Though Michael's homepage is invalid, it remains well-formed. Michael is arguing for the inhert value of XML well-formedness, not validity. In my experience, most generic XML tools only care about well-formedness. Schemas, DTDs, and RelaxNGs are rarely consulted. -- Leons Petrazickis http://lpetr.org/blog/
Received on Friday, 9 March 2007 08:23:00 UTC