Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > XML > Famous XML cliches

Reply
Thread Tools

Famous XML cliches

 
 
scooterm@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2005
Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
without even thinking about it.

Here is one of my favorites:

Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
particularly well suited to processing XML data.

Did you catch that? Kinda like saying:

Because GinzuFoodSlicer is made out of cheese, it is
particularly well-suited for slicing cheese.

Or like saying:

Because the MitsubishiGeox is made out of pure asphalt,
it is particularly well-suited for driving on asphalt.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Here is one of my favorites:
>
> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


Really ? I have never read such "extreme nonsense" (TM).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Malcolm Dew-Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2005
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?= ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
: (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

: > Here is one of my favorites:
: >
: > Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
: > particularly well suited to processing XML data.

: Really ? I have never read such "extreme nonsense" (TM).

no, but I smell a new term

Whereas "foobar" has been the canonical name for a hypothetical function
which would exist in a real situation, so the term "foobang" would be the
name of a hypothetical piece of technical nonsense.


related words:

"foobanger" -- a person who writes foobangs

"to foobang" -- to document, write, or discuss in precise detail,
technical issues that are fundementally flawed.





--

This space not for rent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Pilcher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
> perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
> without even thinking about it.
>
> Here is one of my favorites:
>
> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
> particularly well suited to processing XML data.
>


My favorite is that that product X is "open" because it uses XML.

--
================================================== ======================
Ian Pilcher (E-Mail Removed)
================================================== ======================
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Flynn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
> perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
> without even thinking about it.


This is probably a troll, but what the hell...

> Here is one of my favorites:
>
> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that (least of
all the people responsible for one of the most popular tools written in
XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One (W3C Schemas).

> Did you catch that? Kinda like saying:
>
> Because GinzuFoodSlicer is made out of cheese, it is
> particularly well-suited for slicing cheese.


Closer would be:

Because W3C Schemas are written in XML, they must be particularly
well-suited to specifying XML data

Interesting how the programming community, all with Computer Science
degrees, which means they presumably understand the importance of data
modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) — and then went blithely
on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
documents. <sigh/>

///Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
dingbat@codesmiths.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2005

Ian Pilcher wrote:

> My favorite is that that product X is "open" because it uses XML.


A close favourite with "Its data model is extensible because it uses
XML"

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Kew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2005
Peter Flynn wrote:

> Interesting how the programming community, all with Computer Science
> degrees,


Erm, not those of us above a certain age ... compsci was (seen as) a
mickey-mouse degree in my time. Of course, messing about with computers
while doing a real degree was a different matter altogether

> which means they presumably understand the importance of data
> modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
> couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
> how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) — and then went blithely
> on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
> documents. <sigh/>


Golly, next thing we know you'll be coming out as Arjun's disciple

It's not at all clear to me which of SGML and XML has the higher
proportion gratuitous complexity and obscurity. But on hype there
is of course no contest.

--
Not me guv
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jan Roland Eriksson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2005
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:49:53 +0100, Nick Kew <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Peter Flynn wrote:
>>...which means they presumably understand the importance of data
>> modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
>> couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
>> how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) and then went blithely
>> on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
>> documents. <sigh/>


>Golly, next thing we know you'll be coming out as Arjun's disciple


And what would be wrong with that?

>It's not at all clear to me which of SGML and XML has the higher
>proportion gratuitous complexity and obscurity.


SGML is simple for those who wants to use the standard.

XML was supposed to be simple (with the added touch of "hey, I can make
up my own tags as I go"). In practice XML did through away a few of the
higher benefits of its SGML mother.

I'm just guessing now but lets say that about 90% of the XSLT
programming that has been done up til today could be described as a
reinvention of the wheel if architectural processing of XML instances
had been allowed already from the start of XML.

To me; document markup is a piece of cake, figuring out a suitable
algorithm to control some machine in a real world production line can be
a very different experience.

>But on hype there is of course no contest.


Sadly true

--
Rex


 
Reply With Quote
 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2005
Peter Flynn <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
> > perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
> > without even thinking about it.

>
> This is probably a troll, but what the hell...


Yep.

>> Here is one of my favorites:


>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


> I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that
> (least of all the people responsible for one of the most popular
> tools written in XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One
> (W3C Schemas).


Wow, have people actually said that? Who? When?

(Yes, I have heard people claim the XML transfer syntax
as an advantage, but that's because some people think
rather highly of XML as a way to make complex structured
information more easily processable. It has nothing
to do with whether the information in question is
a definition of XML vocabularies.)

Or are you trolling, too, Peter?

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Tobin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Peter Flynn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


>I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that (least of
>all the people responsible for one of the most popular tools written in
>XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One (W3C Schemas).


I never heard that said about XML Schemas. What I *did* hear - before
the spec was completed - was a sort of converse: that because XML
Schemas will use XML syntax, they will be more amenable to being
processed by XML tools. This is of course true, but unfortunately the
complexity of type derivation limits what can be straightforwardly
extracted from a Schema document using, say, XSLT.

-- Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Own your famous brand watch rooney Firefox 0 04-20-2005 05:58 AM
Garbage Matter your cliches are showing again BrooksVanPall DVD Video 32 05-21-2004 02:32 AM
Famous error - Unable to start debugging on the webserver: Details inside loser ASP .Net 3 08-07-2003 08:55 PM



Advertisments