• To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (andeasier to author) XML)
• From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:29:14 -0500
• References: <016901c21af5$f5275320$0200a8c0@e...> <1025031492.5790.69.camel@ibook>

> Virtually all of them were XHTML but even in the documents containing an
> XHTML declaration, less than 50% were well formed.

I wonder how persistent this problem is once you get behind the server... In
many cases (even on XHTML-L) I have seen folks that work really hard for
WFness and Validity only to insert some advertiser HTML (or free website
HTML) that kills their effort. Either way, on the back end it is developed
correctly and can be processed in a pipeline fashion.

This may be the case and it may not. I think XHTML is a bad example though--
you have a large group of developers who have been trained in the ways of
HTML and Browser forgiveness... they can make mistakes and the only check
is: how does it look in the browser.

My 0.02

Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly lessverbose (andeasier to author) XML)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
  • Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (andeasier to author) XML)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Des criptions for XML
• Next by Date: RE: Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (andeasier to author) XML)
• Previous by thread: Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (andeasier to author) XML)
• Next by thread: Re: Real life XML (was: Suggestions for a slightly lessverbose (andeasier to author) XML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread