On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 12:50 -0500, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
x.m.l. fans here should read yet another dose of harsh reality, this time surprisingly from one of your leaders, simon st. laurent:
http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2006/03/15/next-web-xhtml2-ajax.html
it's interesting how simon uses the past tense for many of your buzzwords...
It seems like you're trying to pick a fight but I'll not bite. The article you post is irrelevant to current XML-based plans for PG. The whole point of the article is that direct delivery of XML to users with stylesheets has not yet happened. However, from what I've heard about current PG uses of XML, they tend towards using XML as a master format for storage on the server. Content is then converted to the user's desired format (plain text, HTML, XML, PDF, or random format X). It should be quite obvious that these two concepts are entirely different. The planned PG approach does not even need the user to have software capable of rendering XML with stylesheets. All it requires of the user is a web browser for accessing PG's site in the first place and a viewer for whichever download format he/she chooses. ---- On a slight side note, I don't see the point of your aggressive posts to the list. Everybody here should be (is?) aiming towards the furthering of PG's goals. If whatever format you choose happens to preferred in the long run, that's not a reason for gloating. The other people on this list are merely trying to help PG as much as we all hope you are. Regards, Holden