Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Famous XML cliches

 
 
Peter Flynn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2005
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

> Peter Flynn <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(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?


I meant that I don't think anyone ever said it about XSLT.
I wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
it about W3C Schemas.

> (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.)


Ah, but I was talking about the cases where the user thought it *was*.

> Or are you trolling, too, Peter?


Moi? <look type="innocent"/>

///Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Tobin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
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 wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
>it about W3C Schemas.


Go on, show us *one*.

-- Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Malcolm Dew-Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
Richard Tobin ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
: 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 wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
: >it about W3C Schemas.

: Go on, show us *one*.

That would be counting.


--

This programmer available for rent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Flynn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
Richard Tobin wrote:

> 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 wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
>>it about W3C Schemas.


[Bear in mind that by "it" I am referring to the belief that using XML
document syntax to describe the document structure somehow makes it better
suited to the task. I am *not* referring to the indisputably useful
side-effect that you can read the Schema during document processing
using XSL[T].]

> Go on, show us *one*.


Good grief. You think I was recording their names?

Virtually everyone in the e-commerce field who took one look at DTDs
and said "Aaarrrggghh, I can't use that."

Everyone who ever subscribed to the "if XML is so smart, how come it
can't describe itself" movement.

Read the logs of the XML SIG.

Several senior developers I spoke to a few weeks ago who had never even
considered DTDs because it was natural to them to use the same language for
both document and definition (this one baffles me for the reasons I gave
earlier).

The numerous pundits and gurus who have been claiming for years that text
documents will have to use W3C Schemas because DTDs will be dead soon.

I won't go on. In one or two cases which were personal conversations I do of
course have a name but these were private discussions.

///Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Tobin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
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.


>Virtually everyone in the e-commerce field who took one look at DTDs
>and said "Aaarrrggghh, I can't use that."


>Several senior developers I spoke to a few weeks ago who had never even
>considered DTDs because it was natural to them to use the same language for
>both document and definition (this one baffles me for the reasons I gave
>earlier).


>The numerous pundits and gurus who have been claiming for years that text
>documents will have to use W3C Schemas because DTDs will be dead soon.


But none of these amounts to the ridiculous claim quoted at the top.
They are all much more plausible - if somewhat overstated - views.

>Everyone who ever subscribed to the "if XML is so smart, how come it
>can't describe itself" movement.


This one is just silly, and I never heard anyone say it.

-- Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
PHeadland@excite.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2005
> compsci was (seen as) a mickey-mouse degree in my time

As someone who read CS at a certain establishment a couple of years
before you got there, I resent that! Any fule kno that Land Economy was
the true dosser's degree (closely followed by HPS).

--
Peter Headland

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Kew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>compsci was (seen as) a mickey-mouse degree in my time

>
>
> As someone who read CS at a certain establishment a couple of years
> before you got there, I resent that! Any fule kno that Land Economy was
> the true dosser's degree (closely followed by HPS).
>

Yeah, land economy was there for the ultra-rich, so that those without
a hope in hell of earning a real degree could get a qualification to
take over the ancestral estates. Noone is suggesting that compsci
was even remotely like that.

OTOH, when three (of ten in my college and year) maths students
failed outright at the end of the second year[1], compsci was the
obvious escape route (for the one who still wanted a degree) ...

[1] That's when years of idleness - prompted by school work having
been mindnumblingly trivial - caught up with us. My own second year
result was nothing to be proud of, and a deep shock when you've
always taken top marks for granted.

--
Not me guv
 
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