You're presuming a rigid split between Providers and Consumers.
Imagine a world where we're all a little of both. By sharing our network, instead of turning chunks of bandwidth into money, we can make our network more robust and more efficient (if not always faster...). We can learn that everyone's a Provider, and everyone's a Consumer.
Nonsense. XHTML lowers the bar for normal people to write web content. Simple validators will make it easy for users to fix simple syntax errors. A strong standards-based language means that people won't have to learn all the differences between all the browsers just to present their content on the web.
You can still use Ultraedit, or vi, or whatever. And you can have faith that you won't spend the rest of your life maintaining your pages, as web browsers change.
WML is not a sub-set of XML, it is an implmentation of XML. I think the idea of using XHTML instead of a totally new XML dialect (WML) is a good one.
Just to nitpick a bit: WML is not an implementation of XML; it is an application of XML. So the devices need to parse XML, because WML is a set of XML tags/attributes, but the tags/attributes, their relationships and semantics are what's defined by WML.
Perception: AOL is for dumb newbies, and AOL's IM client has
annoying ads.
So they buy Nullsoft, and get cool hacks like this. We love it, AOL loses nothing (those ads
were worthless!), and AIM gets to bask in Winamp's reflected glory.
I'd like to echo your shout out to James Clark's products. On the Java front, his XT library implements XSLT, and uses a SAX parser (which, as was pointed out, implies better performance than DOM).
Slashdot Mirror
You're presuming a rigid split between Providers and Consumers.
Imagine a world where we're all a little of both. By sharing our network, instead of turning chunks of bandwidth into money, we can make our network more robust and more efficient (if not always faster...). We can learn that everyone's a Provider, and everyone's a Consumer.
La-la-la.
Nonsense. XHTML lowers the bar for normal people to write web content. Simple validators will make it easy for users to fix simple syntax errors. A strong standards-based language means that people won't have to learn all the differences between all the browsers just to present their content on the web.
You can still use Ultraedit, or vi, or whatever. And you can have faith that you won't spend the rest of your life maintaining your pages, as web browsers change.
Better, IMO, to subtitle it. I've seen it both ways, and it makes a lot more sense subtitled.
Although, to be fair (and wishy-washy), and damn good dubbing would be acceptable, too.
WML is not a sub-set of XML, it is an implmentation of XML. I think the idea of using XHTML instead of a totally new XML dialect (WML) is a good one.
Just to nitpick a bit: WML is not an implementation of XML; it is an application of XML. So the devices need to parse XML, because WML is a set of XML tags/attributes, but the tags/attributes, their relationships and semantics are what's defined by WML.
Perception: AOL is for dumb newbies, and AOL's IM client has annoying ads.
So they buy Nullsoft, and get cool hacks like this. We love it, AOL loses nothing (those ads were worthless!), and AIM gets to bask in Winamp's reflected glory.
Reflected glory!!
I'd like to echo your shout out to James Clark's products. On the Java front, his XT library implements XSLT, and uses a SAX parser (which, as was pointed out, implies better performance than DOM).
http://www.jclark.com/xml/xt.html