- From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:47:20 +0000
- To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>
- CC: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Hi Liam, Thanks for chipping in. > > For me personally, the main reason not to have arbitrary XML > on the Web on my own Web sites is financial: > 1. the search engines don't know how to generate good > snippets (no architectural forms); I have not seen too much on AF, but as I understand the idea, it is like a minimalist transformation allowing presentation of elements and attributes in generic form (e.g. atom:feed/atom:title -> html/head/title) I would have said this is not too important, since a media type registration would define the format's semantics in its own terms, and as that format became more broadly supported, custom search engines would arise if valuable. But having a "web" of a custom media type would only be possible by means of links, which are a prerequisite to having a 'web'. Also, I would think that the transformation to presentation form for the user would be done by the js in an 'api', or code-on-demand in the classical REST sense. Perhaps I don't understand the value of AF enough. > 2. No way to include > JavaScript, so hard to support ads. Good point. How about a processing instruction: <?xml-script type="application/javascript" src="..." ?> Browsers already support loading of xslt via a PI, perhaps they'd be more amenable to a PI-based hypermedia approach. > > Without addressing 1 and 2, I can't afford to move my own > personal Web sites to XML, and even if I did, it wouldn't be > in my users' best interests. So for me personally, those are > the issues that must be addressed first. > But if those were > addressed, I'd be interested in thinking more about linking > from one page I can't currently deploy to another page I > can't currently deploy :-) I don't understand this. Cheers, Peter
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 12:47:48 UTC