- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:57:57 -0500
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > Since it'd fail any time the data is not well-formed XML, I'd actually > expect such usage to be rare. ?It's not all that common to find "XHTML" on > the web that happens to be well-formed XML. A number of popular web apps output mostly well-formed XML, as far as I know: vBulletin, WordPress, etc. Not even close to most websites, of course, but a significant number, I'd think. Of course, they probably don't have the same kind of script-writing community that Wikipedia does -- that's very peculiar to Wikipedia. > Yes, but browsers would have to add explicit support for it. That mostly defeats the point -- they could equally add explicit support for non-XML responseXML first. This should be a short- to medium-term problem only. This makes it sound like if Wikipedia switches to HTML5 and isn't willing to break all screen-scrapers on principle, we'll have to use an obsolete but conforming doctype. That's kind of a pain, particularly from an evangelism point of view. Especially if it raises validator warnings. But I guess that's where XML has gotten us.
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:57:57 UTC