Comment Re:I don't get it... (Score 2, Insightful) 99
*Any* design activity is more complicated than copying a proven, open source design. And if you want that design to be understood by someone else, you still need to (correctly) use a common vocabulary.
It is easier to use what you know (HTML+CSS) and rely on the technology you understand (IE/Firefox/etc). That's it. Some people like to play in new techno sandboxes. Others just need to publish their kid's soccer schedule on their webpage and aren't about to read the help files at their ISP--or sourceforge or the W3C or where ever--about how they install, configure, and use that XML/XSLT stuff. And given how vendors like to extend the functionality of "standards-based" technology, I expect it will take about as long for XML/XSLT to settle as it did for HTML. And if you've ever worked with HTML developers learning XML, you'll see how frustrating it is to transition from the extremely forgiving realm of HTML to the rigor of XML.
Easier is better for many.
The point is not for browsers to ignore anything. Browsers (or extensions) will/are build/ing in tools to respond intelligently to embedded microformats. Microformats make it easy to transform content that would otherwise be thrown up in basic HTML+CSS, so that it is semantically accessible for those systems that are looking for it.
Its a pretty straightforward premise that the easier a technology is, the more people will use it, assuming there is value for doing so. If you still want to develop your own XML and write XSLT to generate HTML, go for it. If you think more people would rather learn XML/XSLT than use the HTML/CSS they already know plus a few microformats, then there isn't much more I can say.
-j
It is easier to use what you know (HTML+CSS) and rely on the technology you understand (IE/Firefox/etc). That's it. Some people like to play in new techno sandboxes. Others just need to publish their kid's soccer schedule on their webpage and aren't about to read the help files at their ISP--or sourceforge or the W3C or where ever--about how they install, configure, and use that XML/XSLT stuff. And given how vendors like to extend the functionality of "standards-based" technology, I expect it will take about as long for XML/XSLT to settle as it did for HTML. And if you've ever worked with HTML developers learning XML, you'll see how frustrating it is to transition from the extremely forgiving realm of HTML to the rigor of XML.
Easier is better for many.
The point is not for browsers to ignore anything. Browsers (or extensions) will/are build/ing in tools to respond intelligently to embedded microformats. Microformats make it easy to transform content that would otherwise be thrown up in basic HTML+CSS, so that it is semantically accessible for those systems that are looking for it.
Its a pretty straightforward premise that the easier a technology is, the more people will use it, assuming there is value for doing so. If you still want to develop your own XML and write XSLT to generate HTML, go for it. If you think more people would rather learn XML/XSLT than use the HTML/CSS they already know plus a few microformats, then there isn't much more I can say.
-j
