danny.ayers at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 04:09:22 PDT 2005
> I get confused trying
> to grasp why people think that reinventing XHTML tags and attributes
> (such as <link binding:type="css"> instead of <link rel="stylesheet"
> .. > ) in XML is better than just using XHTML.
I can't deny finding Microsoft's gadgets something of a square peg in
a round hole, but given that they are pushing this stuff in an RSS
feed, then surely it should be the RSS specs that are followed? I
don't believe there's anything there corresponding directly with a
binding to CSS, so the use of a namespaced element doesn't seem
Sure, all the same stuff could be done using XHTML, but there's a lot
of history here. The original RSS wasn't so much about delivering
content as describing it. Core HTML hadn't (and still hasn't) much
capability in that context above in-document elements. Ok, the way
most RSS is used nowadays is as a content delivery format, and that
functionality could be provided in XHTML. But if MS want to leverage
the RSS bandwagon rather than rebuild syndication from scratch on
XHTML - I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
On 9/23/05, Mark Rickerby <coretxt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a more general way of describing it would be mistakenly
> focusing on syntax more than semantics? (this is technology for
> *communication* after all). I'm just asserting that either form of
> reinvention could be largely based on someones own personal ideals
> about which particular words and characters they like.
A very good point. Syntax really isn't that interesting by itself.
> > People rewrite templating in PHP because they're shortsighted and not
> > humble enough to submit themselves to someone else's paradigm.
> Some people, definitely.
I'm sure there is plenty of shortsightedness. But by the same token,
perhaps a little humility is needed to allow people to use their own
paradigms rather than insisting they follow someone else's. (Not that
I have any myself of course ;-)
More information about the microformats-discuss