From:  "Ed Hillmann" <ed.hillmann@gmail.com>
Date:  09 Sep 2008 10:45:38 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.mozilla.org/mozilla.dev.web-development
Subject:  

Re: What is Firefox looking for to maintain "formatted" XML?

NNTP-Posting-Host:  63.245.208.166

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM, clintonG  wrote:
> 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
> UI.
>
> [1] 5.3 Prolog
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-c14n-20000119.html
>

Well, OK.  You've got your axe to grind, and you go have fun with
that.  I wasn't trying to make excuses for anyone.  I was merely
trying to point out that using XML for containing presentation logic
isn't the best fit.  IMO, readable is machine-readable, not
human-readable.

If you absolutely, positively have use XML, then perhaps using a
browser to read it isn't the best option.  Textpad is good and cheap
and doesn't do anything to the files.

If you want to provide your documentation that can be viewed in a
browser, then giving raw XML won't provide you with a very consistent
output.  There are heaps of options available.  As mentioned before,
you can use HTML or PRE tags.  You could use XSLT to transform your
XML document into HTML documents which can be distributed instead of
the raw XML.  You could use FOP or XDOC if you didn't want to come up
with your own XSLT transforms.  In my mind, the best thing you can do
today is to deliver HTML instead of XML for documentation.  Assuming
this is about delivering documentation (I could be wrong).

Or, as mentioned, chip in and write a plugin that does what you want.
But ranting about liars and going conspiracy-theorist isn't exactly
the best way to get some help.

Have fun now,
Ed