Re: XML - If there was any doubt . . .

Chris:

After reviewing the posts to this thread, I think I should apologize. When I
added in a response to Fuzzy's comments about a "new Microsoft threat", I no
doubt, caused more confusion than clarity.

In an attempt to economize my typing, I was trying to address two different
things in the same post and obviously, you were unable to get inside my mind
and sort out the different thoughts.

(My ex-wife has already explained what a frightening place, being inside my
mind would be to a sane man.)

So--you were in some cases--replying to a different thought than the one I
had in mind (?).

I do agree with all you comments. XML is indeed, integrating itself into
HTML even as we speak. In fact, the two major WYSIWYG editors are already
using parts of XHTML--just like they use parts of CSS--and will undoubtedly,
become even more involved in their next versions.

Although--as usual--I was rambling and did not express myself as well as I
might have, I simply was advising those with concerns to:

"Use it if they had a need or desire for trying some function involving
XHTML/XML. Otherwise, don't worry about it as neither Microsoft, W3C or
anyone else had any plans to shove it down their throats."

In other words a plain old web site done in plain old HTML--whatever that
is--will work just fine both now and the foreseeable future.

At the same time, I agree with Chris. XML is already here.

Now as to WAP.

Here I still think that we have a medium that is so far removed from the
"standard" web site that we might well be advised to construct a separate
site for WAP use. There is simply too much difference between a 2 inch
liquid crystal monochrome screen and a 17-19 inch monitor with full color
and sound.

And I don't think this idea is all that "far out". After all, many, MANY
people now do the same thing for sight impaired. It is a lot easier to
create a second set of pages set up especially to meet BOBBY specs than it
is to spend hours tearing ones hair out, trying to get EVERY page of every
site to meet those criteria.

Bottom line?? Even though I tend to babble incoherently, I don't think we
are very far apart on this.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/novels/
www.newsredding.com/
www.ramac-rc.org/



> Better late than never I guess - but when I saw this thread I just had to
> intervene.  Having spoken at several conferences (Australia, New Zealand,
> USA) regarding the use of XML, I think I'm qualified enough to correct a
> few misconceptions:
>
> 1) Microsoft does not "own" XML and isn't interested in "owning" it - in
> fact, Microsoft contributed to the development of XML as a member of the
W3C.
>
> 2) The Guild's current President - Dr Frank Boumphrey - represented the
> Guild on the original XML working committee, and both Frank and Ann
Navarro
> (a former HWG Governing Board member) were active participants in the
XHTML
> working group.  XHTML is the next generation of HTML.  XHTML 1.0 is
> equivalent to HTML 4.0 except that it also qualifies as XML.
>
> At 02:21 PM 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >Jay mentions he doesn't see the problem. In his case, he actually has a
USE
> >for XML.
>
> *pause while Chris bashed head against wall*
>
> >And no doubt, he uses it very well. But let's face it--most
> >websites just don't have this use for it.
>
> 3.  That's very superficial thinking - the current version of "HTML" _IS_
> XML - by writing to the XHTML standard you are automatically producing XML
> compliant code.
>
> >That is why I say XML is not going
> >to "take over the world".
>
> 4.  You are too late - it already has.  XML is here to stay!  WAP devices
> are continually improving, and the market is growing.  These devices use
> XML technologies now!!  Their use will only increase.
>
> >Sure--some WILL use XML, just as some use Java.
> >Those who actually have something to haul around, often go out and buy a
> >truck. The rest of us mostly cling to the good old sedan.
>
> Not if you want to stay in business - although the XHTML spec _DOES_ allow
> you to take a back-seat role.  Most "web designers" have been able to do
> this of late - for intranet developers it's been a much better
> story.  Namespaces and XML data islands have opened new opportunities that
> HTML 4.01 never could.
>
> >If any scheme comes along--no matter who's scheme it is--its only chance
of
> >working, universally, depends on general practicality.
>
> 5.  Any scheme CAN and WILL come along - at least now ANYONE can look at
> the source and work with it, rather than relying on some proprietary EDI
> application.  No wonder B2B, B2C, and B2G are advancing in leaps and
bounds.
>
> >But in general, that software "lease" business IS already in being. You
can
> >lease most anything Microsoft sells. You can do this with a substantial
> >savings over buying multiple shrink wrapped copies off the shelf.
>
> Exactly - or, for the paranoid, you can design your own.
>
> >It has never been much of a success, primarily because it just isn't very
> >practical. There is too much wasted time between the remote server and
the
> >user's machine. We all know that the idea of a master computer feeding
> >workstations has been around from the very beginning. But--other than the
> >businesses who can really  benefit from a "network", it was just too darn
> >unwieldy.
>
> I think you misunderstand the concept here Ted - we are not talking about
> "having to hook up to a single computer", but merely that all computers
> that want to converse will agree to abide by the common standard referred
> to at [insert URL].  An analogy would be current day browsers that
> understand the W3C HTML spec.  Given your scenario, are you saying all
> browsers have to be online and connected to the W3C before they can render
> a HTML page?
>
> >Remember a few short months ago??? Everyone was going to be using some
form
> >of Web-TV. Half a dozen companies went south on that one.
>
> Web TV is still alive and well, and working particularly well in hotel
> chains - they aren't going to vanish in a hurry.
>
> >Maybe someday XML will be in serious "general" use if the problems that
Paul
> >mentioned, are ever solved.
>
> 6. There was a comment about DTD's in an early post - DTD's are great if
> you are looking at literary works.  However, if you want data-typing and
> better control over the input Schemas are the new way to go.
>
> The HWG has classes on XML and XHTML if anyone is interested.
>
> Regards,
> Chris  Higgs
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA