> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xh), uses 'crud' as shorthand for 'real-world HTML'.
That's mild compared to what I've heard it called :-)
> Microsoft, on the other hand, claims
> > There is an increasing need to be able to embed "islands" of data inside
> > HTML pages.
The "need" they perceive is of course Microsoft's own need to push
things their way (and there's nothing wrong with that: all vendors want
to sell their way as the only true path to enlightenment).
But you can embed islands of data in HTML in a number of ways right
now, without the need to pretend that you're doing XML. Adding an XML
gloss to it is just marketing window-dressing, covering up for the
deficiencies of IE (and NS would be in the same boat) by making it look
as if you're up to date.
What's happened is that the browsers are reaping the harvest of
encouraging the "anything anywhere" model of HTML which they have sown
for so many years. They can't reliably embed islands of data; not
because HTML won't let them (it will), but because their own software
can't cope with it.
But that's all moot: there's no point in flogging the dead horse of
what might have been.
> Whose need exactly isn't specified - as far as I can tell, no users are
> clamoring for this. So once again, to David Turner, who popped his head up on
> the list, what exactly are you selling us as 'XML'? (And yes, it's brave just
> to pop your head up on a list like that, so you've already earned some points
> for bravery.)
Yes, congratulations to him for that, and a plea to MS to let us know
what's going on.
"When it's so easy to do it right, why make such a feature of doing
it so spectacularly wrong?"