*Any* design activity is more complicated than copying a proven, open source design. And if you want that design to be understood by someone else, you still need to (correctly) use a common vocabulary.
It is easier to use what you know (HTML+CSS) and rely on the technology you understand (IE/Firefox/etc). That's it. Some people like to play in new techno sandboxes. Others just need to publish their kid's soccer schedule on their webpage and aren't about to read the help files at their ISP--or sourceforge or the W3C or where ever--about how they install, configure, and use that XML/XSLT stuff. And given how vendors like to extend the functionality of "standards-based" technology, I expect it will take about as long for XML/XSLT to settle as it did for HTML. And if you've ever worked with HTML developers learning XML, you'll see how frustrating it is to transition from the extremely forgiving realm of HTML to the rigor of XML.
Easier is better for many.
The point is not for browsers to ignore anything. Browsers (or extensions) will/are build/ing in tools to respond intelligently to embedded microformats. Microformats make it easy to transform content that would otherwise be thrown up in basic HTML+CSS, so that it is semantically accessible for those systems that are looking for it.
Its a pretty straightforward premise that the easier a technology is, the more people will use it, assuming there is value for doing so. If you still want to develop your own XML and write XSLT to generate HTML, go for it. If you think more people would rather learn XML/XSLT than use the HTML/CSS they already know plus a few microformats, then there isn't much more I can say.
XSLT is a new language to learn. Defining your own XML can be tricky. Integrating it on the server takes some effort and if you want that transform executed on the browser, it certainly will NOT work with as many clients as plain ol' HTML or XHTML.
Microformats OTH exists as socially defined semantic packages based on real world usage (meaning they've been through the ringer and had the bugs worked out, mostly). The author doesn't have to define their own language or learn a new one, they simply use the (X)HTML and CSS they already understand with a few simple tags and their page is now part of the semantic web and works with all modern HTML browsers.
In short, it is simpler for those common cases that fit in existing microformats.
Slashdot Mirror
*Any* design activity is more complicated than copying a proven, open source design. And if you want that design to be understood by someone else, you still need to (correctly) use a common vocabulary.
It is easier to use what you know (HTML+CSS) and rely on the technology you understand (IE/Firefox/etc). That's it. Some people like to play in new techno sandboxes. Others just need to publish their kid's soccer schedule on their webpage and aren't about to read the help files at their ISP--or sourceforge or the W3C or where ever--about how they install, configure, and use that XML/XSLT stuff. And given how vendors like to extend the functionality of "standards-based" technology, I expect it will take about as long for XML/XSLT to settle as it did for HTML. And if you've ever worked with HTML developers learning XML, you'll see how frustrating it is to transition from the extremely forgiving realm of HTML to the rigor of XML.
Easier is better for many.
The point is not for browsers to ignore anything. Browsers (or extensions) will/are build/ing in tools to respond intelligently to embedded microformats. Microformats make it easy to transform content that would otherwise be thrown up in basic HTML+CSS, so that it is semantically accessible for those systems that are looking for it.
Its a pretty straightforward premise that the easier a technology is, the more people will use it, assuming there is value for doing so. If you still want to develop your own XML and write XSLT to generate HTML, go for it. If you think more people would rather learn XML/XSLT than use the HTML/CSS they already know plus a few microformats, then there isn't much more I can say.
-j
XSLT is a new language to learn. Defining your own XML can be tricky. Integrating it on the server takes some effort and if you want that transform executed on the browser, it certainly will NOT work with as many clients as plain ol' HTML or XHTML.
Microformats OTH exists as socially defined semantic packages based on real world usage (meaning they've been through the ringer and had the bugs worked out, mostly). The author doesn't have to define their own language or learn a new one, they simply use the (X)HTML and CSS they already understand with a few simple tags and their page is now part of the semantic web and works with all modern HTML browsers.
In short, it is simpler for those common cases that fit in existing microformats.
And still no server-side script...
With microformats, the data is presented once, with a few simple tags, and is then available to both HTML viewers/users and semantic parsers.