Re: [MACCAWS] XHTML --> XML: Business Pros?
kevin c smith <[email protected]> Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:10:18 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.vkit |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <r01050300-1014-EE09AC6EB0B411D6B1760003936C05F2@[162.33.111.141]> |
On 2002-08-15 7:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. XHTML is good clean markup. (That's great, but my boss won't jump > up and down about it - he doesn't give a rat's pa-tootie that its > well formed.) > > 2. valid XHTML is valid XML. Ok, great - sounds good - but WHY is > this good for my BOSS? What are some reasons I can give the business > guy to move them in that direction? You can parse XHTML with an xml > parser right? So what? What does that get him? That's what we will be > asked. In effect, what is the ROI for XHTML? (eek, acronym pain) > > 3. XHTML is cleaner to maintain. Certainly we can say, this reduces > maintenance costs. Simon covered #2 pretty well, and I think that's really the only argument for using XTHML as opposed to HTML. Your other two points aren't any more true for XHTML than they are for valid, well-formed HTML. -- kevin c smith http://centricle.com