Leszek Gawron dijo: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >> Conal Tuohy dijo: >> >>>Stefano wrote: >>> >>>>The XML syntax makes sense only when you want to process the sitemap >>>>iteself via pipeline (for example, to generate an SVG poster >>>>of it via XSLT) >>>> >>>>And makes sense if you want to prevent people from adding scripting >>>>inside the pipelines (well, actions are kinda like scripting >>>>aren't they) >>> >>>It's also potentially useful for validation. >>> >>>Another thing I like about XML sitemaps is that you can load them in a >>>browser and use + and - buttons to reveal only the sections you want. >>> >>>The fact that XML is a common syntax means that there will always be new >>>things you can with it. >>> >>>Personally, I like it as XML. :-) >> >> >> I agree. The idea I buyed from XML was that we don't need to add new >> parsers, easily transformations using XSLT, etc. and that is a point we >> will lose. > Have you ever trasformed your sitemap for anything else than > sitemap2html purpose? > > Even if you need sitemap documenting it would be better to use javadoc > like tags in some java,grovy,whatsoever code.
Suppose you have an IDE for Cocoon where you need to read the sitemap and show the user it in a GUI. This is my point. The XML version will be easier. As many of you know, I also work in Druid project and there we have a XML internal representation of a DB. This is easier to manage and create than a other format. As you note, I am not only talking about a simple rendering. If this will be the only point, then chaperon can make it without any king of xdoclets... Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
