Comments on: Firefox 3 and XML http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-3-and-xml Cleaning up the web with Ajax Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:55:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: AlainCOUTHURES http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-3-and-xml/comment-page-1#comment-269402 AlainCOUTHURES Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:32:27 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=4815#comment-269402 It's a pitty that FireFox doesn't implement the namespace:: axis !!! I would like to use it for XForms to XHTML+Javascript conversion using XSLT. It works for IE and Opera but not for FF !!! It’s a pitty that FireFox doesn’t implement the namespace:: axis !!!

I would like to use it for XForms to XHTML+Javascript conversion using XSLT. It works for IE and Opera but not for FF !!!

]]> By: hbi http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-3-and-xml/comment-page-1#comment-268274 hbi Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:28:58 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=4815#comment-268274 Thanks for a great article. I use XSLT and namespaces heavily in production on a project and I noticed extreme sluggishness in Firefox 3. In fact, FF3 seems slower than all other browsers while Firefox 2 is faster than any other. Have anyone else come to same or similar conslusion? Thanks in advance, Hakan Bilgin Thanks for a great article.
I use XSLT and namespaces heavily in production on a project and I noticed extreme sluggishness in Firefox 3. In fact, FF3 seems slower than all other browsers while Firefox 2 is faster than any other.

Have anyone else come to same or similar conslusion?
Thanks in advance,
Hakan Bilgin

]]> By: simongil http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-3-and-xml/comment-page-1#comment-268270 simongil Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:32:01 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=4815#comment-268270 Nice to see some improvements to the handling of XML. Whilst XML might seem the forgotten brother to JSON, it's platform neutrality and web-service heritage still make it a great choice for delivering services direct to the browser and indeed, any application client. I make use of XML extensively in both my consumer app (http://applebox.com.au) and custom development, and find that whilst once I may have thought of switching to JSON to eek out a small performance gain in parsing and consumption, those days are well behind me. Nice to see some improvements to the handling of XML. Whilst XML might seem the forgotten brother to JSON, it’s platform neutrality and web-service heritage still make it a great choice for delivering services direct to the browser and indeed, any application client. I make use of XML extensively in both my consumer app (http://applebox.com.au) and custom development, and find that whilst once I may have thought of switching to JSON to eek out a small performance gain in parsing and consumption, those days are well behind me.

]]> By: Bjorg http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-3-and-xml/comment-page-1#comment-268257 Bjorg Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:50:10 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=4815#comment-268257 Michael's notes on XML namespaces are interesting, but it's wrong to state that namespaces have to be URIs. They can be anything you like. For example WebDAV uses xmlns="DAV:" as namespace. However, there is a benefit to using a hierarchical scheme like URIs and that is the ability to assign names without a centralized authority. While on the surface it makes sense to use short prefixes like xhtml: or svg:, having to go through a central authority to standardize them would be an immense bottleneck. For example, we use xmlns="http://mindtouch.com/2007/dekiscript" namespace when mixing our DekiScript XML into standard XHTML for processing. Since we own the domain, we claim right to its URI too. That makes it kind of simple. Although following Java's convention--com.mindtouch.2007.dekiscript--would have been fine too if W3C had recommended that approach. Though advocating a different structure now doesn't seem worth the cost of education. Good examples of the compositional properties of XML namespaces are Atom and it's various extensions such as GeoRSS and GData. That said, anybody who groks XML namespaces will eventually shake their head at their inconsistency as applied to attributes and elements. But that evil is much smaller than the overall benefits of XML namespaces. Michael’s notes on XML namespaces are interesting, but it’s wrong to state that namespaces have to be URIs. They can be anything you like. For example WebDAV uses xmlns=”DAV:” as namespace.

However, there is a benefit to using a hierarchical scheme like URIs and that is the ability to assign names without a centralized authority. While on the surface it makes sense to use short prefixes like xhtml: or svg:, having to go through a central authority to standardize them would be an immense bottleneck. For example, we use xmlns=”http://mindtouch.com/2007/dekiscript” namespace when mixing our DekiScript XML into standard XHTML for processing. Since we own the domain, we claim right to its URI too. That makes it kind of simple. Although following Java’s convention–com.mindtouch.2007.dekiscript–would have been fine too if W3C had recommended that approach. Though advocating a different structure now doesn’t seem worth the cost of education.

Good examples of the compositional properties of XML namespaces are Atom and it’s various extensions such as GeoRSS and GData. That said, anybody who groks XML namespaces will eventually shake their head at their inconsistency as applied to attributes and elements. But that evil is much smaller than the overall benefits of XML namespaces.

]]>