• From: Danny Ayers <danny@p...>
• To: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:34:45 +0600

Hi,
I've just had a quick glance - looks really useful, thanks.

I amused by the irony of a rant being saved as Word HTML though - worthy of
a rant in itself! Looking at the source though it does look like they've
improved things considerably - there's even a ns ref to the HTML 4 rec.
Maybe the tool in Dreamweaver specifically for sorting out Word HTML is no
longer needed. I wonder though if it will display properly on Netscape...

Cheers,
Danny.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Brown [mailto:mbrown@c...]
> Sent: 29 December 2000 12:49
> To: 'xml-dev@l...'
> Subject: XML vs HTTP
>
>
> I have written a little rant^H^H^H^H^H white paper to inform my fellow
> developers about the risks inherent in HTTP transmissions of XML,
> especially
> when processing an XML document as if it were (or as) an HTML form data
> submission.
>
> It is surely not perfect, so I would appreciate some peer review. Please
> have a look at http://skew.org/xml/misc/xml_vs_http/ and address
> comments to
> me directly so I can correct the defects without too much public
> embarrassment.
>
> Also, apologies for the HTML in the document, if it causes
> problems; it was
> saved directly from MS Word, in great haste.
>
> Thank you,
>
>    - Mike
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Mike J. Brown, software engineer at            My XML/XSL resources:
> webb.net in Denver, Colorado, USA              http://skew.org/xml/
>

• References:
  • XML vs HTTP
    • From: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>

• Prev by Date: XML vs HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: Treaty of Wulai (was Re: simple question on namespaces.)
• Previous by thread: XML vs HTTP
• Next by thread: XML to Fax Utility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread