Yes to both, but that is not to say that their opinion on the Protoevangelium of James is less than qualified - If you have some defense for it, I would entertain a look, but to my knowledge it was committed to psuedepigrapha very early in it's life. No one I know of endorses it.
I was just making the point that both people you mentioned went down the wrong path, not that the protoevangelium of James is canonical.