From:  "clintonG" <nobody@nowhere.com>
Date:  09 Sep 2008 12:03:46 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:  72.133.206.236

Well yea, presuming all XML should be or must be styled is a misconception 
and its not what many persons using XML want or need. The problem being they 
still may not understand that when XML is being used as RSS the browsers 
that lie and strip out the XML prolog from what they imply is valid XML are 
compromising the use of RSS protocol by corrupting its credibility for those 
who don't know its really the shitty browser's fault.

That's not my personal ax to grind but of interest to many developers and 
other people attempting to use RSS only to discover how FUBAR FF and other 
browsers are in this context of corrupting the use of RSS while many 
advocates of these same browsers trash-talk the IE browser that happens to 
do at least this one thing very well.

Leaving me no other choice I've been compelled to write XML comments into 
the files my company's product generates to inform our customers that FF is 
not trustworthy because it lies on its user interface.

Neither Chrome, Opera nor Safari render the document tree either and are 
also quite shitty in that they do not provide native support for rendering 
formatted raw XML but at least they do not lie about it and deceive people 
in the UI which again is the most serious issue of all.

Even FF3 perpetuates this shit. Very disappointing and bad for business.



"Ed Hillmann"  wrote in message 
news:mailman.1699.1220928343.3597.dev-web-development@lists.mozilla.org...
> 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