I can agree with most of your points in general noting the --intentions--
expressed by those who designed XML from day one have in fact been expressed
as a readable tree. I was there day one but not necessarily writing code
that required emitting raw XML. So AFIC you're making excuses by referring
to the specification which does not require the raw XML to be expressed as a
"readable" data structure which is true of course but compared to what as a
result? A concatenated unreadable string when any person being fair and
square would not consider that readable at all?
Furthermore, what is even worse is not the hypocrisy but the indisputable
fact that FF lies on its user interface misleading people who would
misbelieve the lie and be misled to copy invalid XML that FF not only lied
about but mangled by stripping the prolog from the rest of the document
resulting in all kinds of shit when hitting various fans.
This is not cool at all and I do not appreciate having to write comments
into the XML to explain and warn people who I must provide with raw XML in
some circumstances to be advised that Safari, Opera and Firefox trashed the
actual XML and have in the context of FF lied on the UI to mislead people
who do not have technical knowledge to know they have been lied to. This is
damn lazy of the developers of these flakey browsers and just as shamefully
disgusting as anything Internet Explorer has been blamed for.
Having to manually reformat the raw XML is an annoyance once having viewed
source but the least the lazy liars could have done is avoid mangling the
XML leaving the prolog intact in their misleading lies expressed in the fake
 5.3 Prolog
"Ed Hillmann" wrote in message
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:55 AM, clintonG wrote:
>> I've just learned Internet Explorer is the only browser that actually
>> correctly renders raw XML as the developer intends. Firefox lies and
>> the XML prolog and then displays a styled tree. This of course will
>> a person who does not know they must view source to copy and paste the
>> XML. Furthermore, the raw XML in the source no longer has white-space
>> indentation preserved.
>> Can Firefox be configured somehow to stop lying and render raw XML
>> correctly? XML is supposed to be a "READABLE" file format and discovering
>> this has been a big surprise that I observer Opera and Safari also fail
>> do correctly.
>> So either Internet Explorer renders raw XML correctly maintaining the
>> objective of generating a "READABLE" file format or all of the other
>> browsers are FUBAR.
>> What's the facts here and how do I provide people with VALID raw XML they
>> can read that has well-formed white-space and indentation as a
>> tree as XML was intended to be displayed when it was created?
> If you're after specifications about how XML has been architected to
> be used, I would go to http://www.w3.org/XML/
> I'm not aware of any specification that dictates how XML is to be
> displayed or rendered, given that XML is not a syntax for the
> presentation of data. It is a specification for the definition of
> As far as my experience with XML is concerned, being (human) readable
> is not one of it's primary goals. It's readability focuses on the
> processes on different machines (written in different languages,
> running on different operating systems) can read the data within the
> XML document. Defining data as text allows for this (instead of a
> binary format that cannot describe how to decode the data).
> Data in a normal XML element will not preserve spaces. So when you
> speak of "well-formed white space and indentation", one of the first
> thing any XML parser will do is try to strip out what it deems as
> unnecessary spaces. Typically, from a data-transfer point of view it
> would certainly be inefficient to send the formatting (XML is not
> originally designed to contain formatting).
> If you have text in an XML document that must retain the formatting,
> you should put the formatted text within CDATA tags. The CDATA tag
> instructs the parser to leave the text as it is.
> Good luck,