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

In a message dated 18/08/2002 22:34:11 GMT Daylight Time, 

> > 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).


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.

Parsing the quoted sentence a little differently - emphasising "that is now 
possible with HTML" - the sentence then could seem to mean little more than 
W3C will support an XMLisation of HTML i.e. produce XHTML.

But, at least as I understand the English language, generic XML describes the 
XML which Elliotte was alluding to, with the possible qualifier that the 
recipient would/should/could be aware, at least to some degree, of the XML 
structure being sent.

I would be interested to know how others read the quoted sentence. Is it W3C 
double-speak which essentially means nothing but sounds rosy? Is it a 
commitment/ambition which W3C has hitherto failed to realise? Or what?

Andrew Watt

Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 02:09:32 UTC