SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 142
  1. #101
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    The future will show us what XML is meant for... at the moment it is one of those buzzwords, which makes people think it is good for everything...
    IMHO, XML still has to become used much wider than it is right now. As client-side XSLT support increases our web applications will soon enough start spitting XML to the browser instead of (X)HTML.
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  2. #102
    SitePoint Guru momos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    XSLT is used already for these things, but most of the time it is parsed(to XHTML) on the server.

    btw XHTML is XML

  3. #103
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    XSLT is used already for these things, but most of the time it is parsed(to XHTML) on the server.
    This is my point exactly. If clients had a better XSLT support there will be no need to do the transformations on the server side, which IMO not only simplify things for application development but it's the way it should be done. Moreover, and going quite off topic, clients should ideally have to handle content type negotiation themselves and avoid the burden on the server side.

    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    btw XHTML is XML
    Don't want to start yet another endless discussion, but I don't think so.
    XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4. (W3C Definition)
    .
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  4. #104
    throw me a bone ... now bonefry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwb_99
    IIRC, alot more encodings are necessary. Like ". Then you get into funky characters that don't really belong but appear. Like crap from Word.
    Those are the only encodings really really necessary. The others can be ignored, including &quote;.

    Quote Originally Posted by wwb_99
    A compiled echo:
    Code:
    #include <stdio.h>
    int main(void)
    {
      printf("Hello World!\n");
      exit(0);
    }
    libxml2 is far from a simple printf

  5. #105
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    608
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nacho
    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    btw XHTML is XML
    Don't want to start yet another endless discussion, but I don't think so..
    In a non-pedantic sense it is: "Whereas HTML was an application of SGML, a very flexible markup language, XHTML is an application of XML--" (Wikipedia)

  6. #106
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezku
    In a non-pedantic sense it is: "Whereas HTML was an application of SGML, a very flexible markup language, XHTML is an application of XML--" (Wikipedia)
    Being accurate is being pedantic?
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Guru momos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm with Ezku!

  8. #108
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    I'm with Ezku!
    Of course you are.
    It's also rather interesting to see that you both give more value to a definition in a wiki than to that one given by W3C, but oh wait, am I being pedantic again, or is it cynical this time?

    Back to topic?
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  9. #109
    SitePoint Addict timvw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We've already talked about the relationship between XHTML and XML.

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...5&postcount=11

  10. #110
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    608
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Say I have a lollipop. I say "this is candy". Am I incorrect? Now replace the lollipop with an XHTML document and candy with XML.

    Quote Originally Posted by nacho
    It's also rather interesting to see that you both give more value to a definition in a wiki than to that one given by W3C
    You fail to realise that those two by no means contradict each other.

    But yeah, let's not drag this any longer

  11. #111
    SitePoint Addict timvw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It all depends on how you define "is".

    Do you mean that a is b if all elements of a are an element of b?
    Or do you also require that all elements of b are an element of a?

  12. #112
    SitePoint Addict myrdhrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow... I didn't realize that we had to put XHTML in a single box.

    From what I've read so far XHTML is a descendant of HTML 4. It extends it but it also a valid XML document.

    So with that in mind it's both XML and HTML (hey! maybe that's why it's called XHTML... I feel the cynical in me wanting to take the keyboard)
    Jean-Marc (aka Myrdhrin)
    M2i3 - blog - Remind-M

  13. #113
    SitePoint Guru momos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't start doubting Myrdhrin, it is exactly what you are saying

  14. #114
    SitePoint Addict psyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cedar Rapids
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by timvw
    I think the advantage of XML is that virtually every environment has tools to generate/parse XML...

    So instead of defining some (binary) format and writing the code to generate/parse it, you can use the allready available XML tools and spend your time on other parts of the code.
    So why wasnt a universal binary format developed? If most of the parsing is done by computers, it would be easier for a computer to read binary forms, rather than parsing text.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Addict psyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cedar Rapids
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric.Coleman
    As I posted on the first page, which seemed to be overlooked:
    Perfect application of it.
    wouldnt be any differnt though if it was some other storage format. If flash supported an odd binary format, the same could be said.

  16. #116
    SitePoint Addict timvw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by psyon
    So why wasnt a universal binary format developed? If most of the parsing is done by computers, it would be easier for a computer to read binary forms, rather than parsing text.
    Don't blame me for that :P

    Edit: That is why they are trying to push binary xml now, not?

    (I wanted to ask: Why do most linux distros use plain text in /etc instead of a binary register? But that's not completely right because you have a human <-> machine interaction there instead of a machine <-> machine)

  17. #117
    SitePoint Addict psyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cedar Rapids
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ronanmagee
    My understanding of XML is that it provides a way to describe data. By providing a description you inadvertently make it human readable.
    I can send 4 bytes representing an integere over a network connection. This value represents the length of the data to follow. I just described the data, but its not human readable.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HTTP Headers are also only used for machine-machine communication, yet they chose to make it plain english and readable. Is it so that people can use netcat to talk to webservers and read webpages? Doubtful...

  19. #119
    throw me a bone ... now bonefry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by psyon
    So why wasnt a universal binary format developed? If most of the parsing is done by computers, it would be easier for a computer to read binary forms, rather than parsing text.
    Isn't it funny that on every thread there always is someone who can continue complaining about something, and when that someone quits complaining, there is always someone who can complain more.

    Don't like XML ? Don't use it. Maybe you are one of those people who can read the following:

    EEF072 AB23A1 F15676 F5416S F1F415 765172 B0B98A 67BC45

  20. #120
    Non-Member Musicbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    india
    Posts
    1,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you can find good example of xml scripts at this website http://www.kissmobilescripts.com

  21. #121
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    656
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    bonefry, I don't see anyone complaining in this thread. What I see is people asking other people why they use XML and what its advantages are. When the arguments for using XML that are given are not very good and can be countered with other arguments, and people from both sides persevere at that, do you see that as complaining?

    The reason that people are - what you call - complaining about XML may very well be a good indicator that something is wrong with it or at the very least that it is not all what it's cranked up to be.

    If the people complaining were vendors of some XML alternative it would be a different situation of course, but I don't believe any posters here have special business interests in questioning XML.
    I once had a problem.
    I thought: "Oh, I know: I'll just use XML!"
    Now I had two problems.

  22. #122
    SitePoint Guru 33degrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    707
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nacho
    Quote Originally Posted by momos
    btw XHTML is XML
    Don't want to start yet another endless discussion, but I don't think so.
    XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4. (W3C Definition)
    If you had read just a bit further you would see the phrase:
    XHTML 1.0 (this specification) is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0

  23. #123
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 33degrees
    If you had read just a bit further you would see the phrase:
    XHTML 1.0 (this specification) is the first document type in the XHTML family. It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types as applications of XML 1.0
    Please, don't be ridiculous. Do you really think I would point to W3C without ever having read the specifications? I know exactly what XHTML stands for, and that's exactly why I reacted to momos' comment.

    (By the way, have you read it yourself?)
    It is a reformulation of the three HTML 4 document types ...
    Had he said XML and XHTML are both markup languages (i.e. a lollypop is a candy), or XHTML is an application of XML, I had never said anything about it. But he did not. He made a bold assertion, thinking probably that I wouldn't know better.

    To better reflect my meaning, and making use of Ezku's sweet example:
    An apple pie is made of apple, yet IS NOT AN APPLE, is it?.

    Having said that, I'd ask once more not to make of this thread a flame war, because it was never my intention. Let's keep focused on what is really relevant. We're not getting anywhere anyhow.
    Last edited by nacho; Aug 11, 2005 at 22:12. Reason: typo
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

  24. #124
    SitePoint Guru dagfinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by psyon
    So why wasnt a universal binary format developed? If most of the parsing is done by computers, it would be easier for a computer to read binary forms, rather than parsing text.
    This may have been said before, but one reason could be that programs have bugs, and once you have to search for a bug, having information in human-readable format tends to be helpful.
    Dagfinn Reiersøl
    PHP in Action / Blog / Twitter
    "Making the impossible possible, the possible easy,
    and the easy elegant"
    -- Moshe Feldenkrais

  25. #125
    throw me a bone ... now bonefry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Proton
    bonefry, I don't see anyone complaining in this thread. What I see is people asking other people why they use XML and what its advantages are. When the arguments for using XML that are given are not very good and can be countered with other arguments, and people from both sides persevere at that, do you see that as complaining?

    The reason that people are - what you call - complaining about XML may very well be a good indicator that something is wrong with it or at the very least that it is not all what it's cranked up to be.

    If the people complaining were vendors of some XML alternative it would be a different situation of course, but I don't believe any posters here have special business interests in questioning XML.
    Yes but many arguments aremade to statements ripped out of context.

    And when posting on a thread one should at least read half the comments in there before posting his own oppinion, because an answer to its questions might allready be there. But I saw that many members only read the last 3 comments or so. And at this pace we will never agree on something and the same oppinions that are on page x can be found again on page y.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •