Well then, it's nice to meet someone who knows what he's doing with respect to XHTML. Kudos. (btw, I hope your PHP can guarantee well-formedness. it's one of the nice things about XSLT)
Yeah, forgot to mention Vary. I don't see how your statement about q values makes any sense though; if you're changing your response based on one of the Accept headers that's content negotiation by definition.
Well, my biggest problem with that is that it doesn't take q values into account; I could accept application/xhtml+xml, but prefer text/html, a possiblity your script ignores.
The second problem is that you're lying about the page's content. Easily fixed with an s/1.1/1.0 Strict/ (please don't actually use this as there's a bit more to it than that); better fixed with some really simple XSLT (which is what I do on my website).
Unlike some, I have no objection to serving XHTML 1.0 as text/html (since it's explicitly allowed for if you follow Appendix C), but doing the same with XHTML 1.1 isn't allowed, and seems like nothing more than buzzword compliance. Unless you're using Ruby, the differences are pretty insignificant so you have no reason to anyways.
A lot of people miss the point, yeah. I don't know if my website validates, and I don't really care; this isn't to say that validation isn't a good thing, just that I know what I'm doing and the potential ramifications, and if I have a few <ul/>s without <li/>s, oh well. It used to be a big deal for me, but after having actually done useful things with markup I don't see how absolute conformance to a doctype makes the data any more useful.
That said, I think proper use of HTML is a good first step. The whole microformats movement (which I think is an acceptable substitute for XML or RDF in lots of cases, perhaps preferable in some) would be absolutely impractical without some kind of tradition of sensible HTML, and without separation of presentation and structure you end up with things like OPML.
Things are improving. Not as fast as I'd like them to, but people are starting to get this whole "web" thing.
It's frustrating, because places like Amazon and Ebay would be a lot more useful if they could be reliably scraped. If they offered a pure XML API, it wouldn't matter, but without that and with icky-smelly-unsemantic HTML there's no practical way to get at the raw data. Maybe they don't want that, but *I* do.
If nobody's willing to pay them, then they have no value. By definition. And yeah, there will (probably) be a decrease in the quality of the work done, but I at least think that a little bit of quality for a lot of freedom is a fair trade - especially when you consider a lot of the baggage that comes with that quality.
As for your open source example, what the programmers get out of it is entirely tangent to the issue. Without Apache (eg.) the WWW wouldn't be anything like it is today. Chances are it'd be limited to much larger players and be much less flexible. There would be benefits, but I'm not sure they're worth it.
90% of everything is crap; WorldNet Daily or the Edmonton Sun or a thousand other tabloids aren't any better for having paid staff.
I'm not sure what that has to do with socialism. There're plenty of socialists who simply think that putting money into helping the "less fortunate" creates more value than piling it into investments.
I assume you meant <object/> is replacing <img/>. This is incorrect. In the current working draft <img/> still exists but only as a place to hang the src attribute. As the src attribute can appear on pretty much any element, you don't need <object/> as an <img/> replacement either; <p src='img.png'/> will do essentially the same thing.
Not that it matters in this case, it'll be a cold day in hell before IE supports XHTML 2 anyhow. They don't even support XHTML 1, and AFAICT have no intention to (although I commend the IE team for not just supporting it brokenly).
Slashdot Mirror
Mass transit costs more per mile, or more per person-mile? The first is irrelevant, and I find the second difficult to believe. Substantiate?
Well then, it's nice to meet someone who knows what he's doing with respect to XHTML. Kudos. (btw, I hope your PHP can guarantee well-formedness. it's one of the nice things about XSLT)
Yeah, forgot to mention Vary. I don't see how your statement about q values makes any sense though; if you're changing your response based on one of the Accept headers that's content negotiation by definition.
Well, my biggest problem with that is that it doesn't take q values into account; I could accept application/xhtml+xml, but prefer text/html, a possiblity your script ignores.
The second problem is that you're lying about the page's content. Easily fixed with an s/1.1/1.0 Strict/ (please don't actually use this as there's a bit more to it than that); better fixed with some really simple XSLT (which is what I do on my website).
The third (potential) problem is that there are differences in the way CSS and Javascript work that can trip you up.
Unlike some, I have no objection to serving XHTML 1.0 as text/html (since it's explicitly allowed for if you follow Appendix C), but doing the same with XHTML 1.1 isn't allowed, and seems like nothing more than buzzword compliance. Unless you're using Ruby, the differences are pretty insignificant so you have no reason to anyways.
You've got it all wrong - RSS is a pathetic imitation of nerdishness. (I'd like to work in a link to Winer's site too, but I have better things to do)
Don't forget Borges, which is hella confusing when you're trying to figure it out, but damned amazing once you have.
While I agree that KHTML is nice, I disagree that Acid2 is interesting.
A lot of people miss the point, yeah. I don't know if my website validates, and I don't really care; this isn't to say that validation isn't a good thing, just that I know what I'm doing and the potential ramifications, and if I have a few <ul/>s without <li/>s, oh well. It used to be a big deal for me, but after having actually done useful things with markup I don't see how absolute conformance to a doctype makes the data any more useful.
That said, I think proper use of HTML is a good first step. The whole microformats movement (which I think is an acceptable substitute for XML or RDF in lots of cases, perhaps preferable in some) would be absolutely impractical without some kind of tradition of sensible HTML, and without separation of presentation and structure you end up with things like OPML.
Things are improving. Not as fast as I'd like them to, but people are starting to get this whole "web" thing.Good for you! Wait, why do I care?
It's frustrating, because places like Amazon and Ebay would be a lot more useful if they could be reliably scraped. If they offered a pure XML API, it wouldn't matter, but without that and with icky-smelly-unsemantic HTML there's no practical way to get at the raw data. Maybe they don't want that, but *I* do.
My understanding is that ID3 tags are at the end of the file. Oh, and they're the stupidest metadata format evar. Up Ogg!
Whereas with bad not-open-source software, even Woz can't fix it. How is that supposed to be better?
XUL.
If nobody's willing to pay them, then they have no value. By definition. And yeah, there will (probably) be a decrease in the quality of the work done, but I at least think that a little bit of quality for a lot of freedom is a fair trade - especially when you consider a lot of the baggage that comes with that quality.
As for your open source example, what the programmers get out of it is entirely tangent to the issue. Without Apache (eg.) the WWW wouldn't be anything like it is today. Chances are it'd be limited to much larger players and be much less flexible. There would be benefits, but I'm not sure they're worth it.
90% of everything is crap; WorldNet Daily or the Edmonton Sun or a thousand other tabloids aren't any better for having paid staff.
PS. profit is only one measure of success.I'm not sure what that has to do with socialism. There're plenty of socialists who simply think that putting money into helping the "less fortunate" creates more value than piling it into investments.
What are you, a respected member of the Pigdog journalist team doing wasting your time on Slashdot?
That's the beauty of it, the alternate text is the actual content of the element. The alt attribute was stupid anyhow. Take a look at the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-embedding.html#s_e mbeddingmodule
set up your web server to send pictures of stoats to UAs with a MySpace Referer header. Or penises.
I assume you meant <object/> is replacing <img/>. This is incorrect. In the current working draft <img/> still exists but only as a place to hang the src attribute. As the src attribute can appear on pretty much any element, you don't need <object/> as an <img/> replacement either; <p src='img.png'/> will do essentially the same thing.
Not that it matters in this case, it'll be a cold day in hell before IE supports XHTML 2 anyhow. They don't even support XHTML 1, and AFAICT have no intention to (although I commend the IE team for not just supporting it brokenly).
Depends on your definition of "executed", I guess. If bash or Python scripts count, then I'd imagine that ANT or XSLT do too.
"Can't trust 'em" isn't the same as "they're evil" for the same reason that "I'm not in love with cheese" doesn't mean "I detest dairy products".
Death's part and parcel, so I guess that leaves War.
Interesting idea. rss-fuse anyone?
It's not a security risk, it's an interoperability risk.