Re: Linking to XML

[David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >> Jeff Turner wrote:
> > 
> >> ATM, practically I have no use of it. Furthermore nobody has ever used 
> >> it AFAIK so IMO we can safely remove this "feature".
> >>
> >> Instead we could put a "source" link, ie a link to the document 
> >> source, but we'll think of it if/when we'll really need it this time ;-)
> >>
> >> So, I'll remove the XML link on the pages: anyone against?
> > 
> > Ahhh.. so you were talking about the actually link icon on the page. Not 
> > relevent to my prototype, I just need to get the raw XML which is 
> > retrieved via an XInclude in my remote apps.
> 
> Ok, but since you are relying on it, it's actually a feature that is 
> used. Should it be part of our contract? Why not?

That link is one source of the problem. It encourages people to expose
the xml without realising the consequences. That may be still good in
certain situations, but that is up to the developer.

I still cannot understand why someone would want to click on a link
to a raw xml file and view it with their web browser.

So my opinion is to not provide them with that rope.

> Since you are using it, ...

My reading of Ross' comment is that he is *not* using it and is rather
using the sitemap to deliver xml output.

> I won't remove the possibility of having the 
> link on the page, as that skinconf section shows the other possible 
> output formats. I will instead write a small description of what it may 
> be used for.

I would like to talk more about this link thing. We seem to
be encouraging bad practise.

--David

Re: Linking to XML

[David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> ...
> >>I won't remove the possibility of having the 
> >>link on the page, as that skinconf section shows the other possible 
> >>output formats. I will instead write a small description of what it may 
> >>be used for.
> > 
> > I would like to talk more about this link thing. We seem to
> > be encouraging bad practise.
> 
> Look, I wanted to remove it but don't want to make it too hard for 
> others to use this feature. It's off by default and I put in a discaimer 
> on the default skinconf. Besides, I've never seen any site use it, so 
> AFAIK nobody activated it on pullic sites, hence it's not a liability.

I have seen some, cannot remember where. So it is being abused.

> In any case, I'm fine with either, as I don't use it and don't 
> personally see the need for it. Do what you think best, it's ok for me. :-)

This issue is far bigger than than a link on the HTML page.
I will keep quiet for now and we will see if anybody else
is bothered.

--David

Re: Linking to XML

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

David Crossley wrote:
...
>>I won't remove the possibility of having the 
>>link on the page, as that skinconf section shows the other possible 
>>output formats. I will instead write a small description of what it may 
>>be used for.
> 
> I would like to talk more about this link thing. We seem to
> be encouraging bad practise.

Look, I wanted to remove it but don't want to make it too hard for 
others to use this feature. It's off by default and I put in a discaimer 
on the default skinconf. Besides, I've never seen any site use it, so 
AFAIK nobody activated it on pullic sites, hence it's not a liability.

In any case, I'm fine with either, as I don't use it and don't 
personally see the need for it. Do what you think best, it's ok for me. :-)

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------