A discussion has been raised on the ML with the argument that XML was
not a success on the Web.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Aug/0015The assertion could be true or completely wrong depending on how you
define the Web, but it got me to look a bit further.
I found that an article about Government Web sites in China, and the
tester found that none of them was actually valid.
[[[
The validation result
The validation result details shows that none of the tested sites use
valid HTML. More worrying is that only one site is using headings. A
common problem with the tested sites is that encoding has been used
incorrectly.
]]]
-- Government Web Standards Usage: People's Republic of China -
Standards-schmandards
http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2006/02/26/35-gvmt-
standards-prc
Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:33:16 GMT
The author reminds also that
[[[
Although tests of other countries have shown similar results (USA:
2.4%, New Zealand: 5.7%) having no valid sites indicates the absence
of a central policy for government web communication.
]]]
-- Government Web Standards Usage: People's Republic of China -
Standards-schmandards
http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2006/02/26/35-gvmt-
standards-prc
Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:33:16 GMT
Björn Hörmann reminded me of the article of Mark Pilgrim
"XML on the Web Has Failed"
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/21/dive.htmlwhich concludes by saying that 90% (being only a part of XML) of
*feeds* were not XML. I don't want to draw a conclusion, but that 10%
are actually XML.
Does that mean that XML does in fact better than HTML on the "Web"?
--
Karl Dubost -
http://www.w3.org/People/karl/W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog -
http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
