First, thanks Ugo for comming up with fresh ideas! Personally, I'm happy with our XML based version of the sitemap, but who knows, perhaps there are nicer ways of describing the sitemap than XML?
I think this discussion is moving in the wrong direction. There are pro and cons for an XML based sitemap and it might be that it's possible to come up with a better solution. But finding this solution should not be driven by technical details. If we want a different syntax, then let's first think about how this syntax should look like (in order to be easier to understand, faster to code etc). Then - after we found a good syntax - let's think about how to implement it. But let not implementation details (or technics) drive the syntax. It is more important to have a good sitemap language than to have a clean and small implementation. Carsten
