* Aaron Crane [2007-09-28 10:50]:
> If you concatenate them, you can't tell which PI goes with
> which instance.
Augh. Never mind attributes vs elements: PIs, now there's a wart
that gives vocabulary designers an escape hatch from proper
design.
As for framing, what I've seen in some places is u
* Michael G Schwern [2007-09-28 03:45]:
> $ cat `which yaml2json`
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
>
> use strict;
> use YAML ();
> use JSON ();
>
> my $json = JSON->new(pretty => 1, indent => 4);
> print $json->objToJson(YAML::Load(join "", <>));
Let me know how that works out for YAML that contains refer
On 28/09/07 00:39 Nicholas Clark wrote:
> [If necessary, think of Lotus Notes and pound your head into the keyboard a
> few times. That should do the trick]
Isn't that redundant?
On 27/09/2007, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> *but* WTF aren't you just using tar zxf Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz ? :)
I'm glad you put a smiley there, otherwise I wouldn't have known you
were trolling.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
Daniel Pittman writes:
> Because XML isn't, you know, self-framing or anything.
It's not entirely self-framing, no. Here is a well-formed XML
instance:
Here is another:
If you concatenate them, you can't tell which PI goes with which
instance. (Though the problem goes away if you
On 2007-09-28 at 10:39 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Why, yes, EPP, I /am/ looking at you. Felching miserable half-caste
> screwed up abortion of a protocol.
> Well, then, what should we do? Why, add a 32bit binary number before
> each XML message to give the length, adding binary framing to
On 27 Sep 2007, at 23:52, Michael G Schwern wrote:
As insane as it is that anyone would pick XML as a human data
format. I'm
looking at YOU Ant!
"human data format"?
Ant uses XML as a *programming language syntax*. That is completely
insane.
Happily, the original author of Ant seems to
Fink is a wonderful idea for software. Let's take the debian package
installation experience, and adopt it to work on Mac OS X. Nice idea. Really. I
mean it. ;-)
It's the execution where it leads to hatefulness, weeping & wailing, & gnashing
of teeth. So I'm doing one of my periodic "fink selfupda
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> YAML is a gigantic pile of suck. If it corresponded to the
> feature set of JSON, it would be fine, but good grief, take
> your complexity fetish and stick it somewhere unmentionable.
>
> As it is, I'll have JSON instead please, thankyouverymuch.
But JSON is YAML. :) JSON e
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Earle Martin wrote:
> You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say,
> Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder
> called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it
> again (without removing the first expanded folder), it
* Daniel Pittman [2007-09-28 02:40]:
> we were talking about the abomination of XML that was designed
> by taking SGML, pulling anything designed to make it human or
> author friendly out, then claiming that this was all done for
> the best because we can much better afford to spend human brain
>
* demerphq [2007-09-27 14:50]:
> Hear hear. From what ive seen the "attributes are evil use
> tags" crowd usually justify their position by essentially
> stating that they are crap schema designers who want to cover
> up for their lack of foresightedness and planning and design
> skills by ensurin
Michael G Schwern writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> One of us must be. Perhaps it was my sarcasm, perhaps I completely
>> misunderstood your point. To help clear this up:
>>
>> There is no difference in the information conveyed using a child tag or
>> an attribute of a tag.
>>
>> The only d
Sean Conner writes:
> It was thus said that the Great Daniel Pittman once stated:
>> "Tony Gies" writes:
>> > On 9/27/07, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> >> ...you were going so well and then, suddenly...
>> >
>> > I think one of us is missing something here, because you appear
>> > actually to be agre
* Michael G Schwern [2007-09-28 01:10]:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >> I would like, at this point, to pimp YAML a little.
> >
> > Not at all over-engineered!
>
> Over engineered in all the right places. :)
YAML is a gigantic pile of suck. If it corre
* Earle Martin [2007-09-27 12:10]:
> However, if you then double-click it again (without removing
> the first expanded folder), it produces a folder called...
> Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has decided to
> increment the version numbers on your downloaded software.
Firefox used
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:43:27PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Cheers,
> yves
> ps: I have a headache, so there may be more vitriol in this post than
> is strictly necessary.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:03:16PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
> Anyway, XML is hateful, full stop. We are just quibbling over t
On Sep 27, 2007, at 6:11 PM, tgies wrote:
Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of
implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the
interpreter, not XChat.
Yeah (speaking as someone who lives in Ruby every day), Ruby's
implementation could really use some work. F
tgies wrote:
> Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this
> playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in
> determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up
> about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script
> containing
On 9/27/07, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> While hating the prettiest kid on the block is a fine past time, you sure you
> shouldn't be kicking X-Chat instead?
Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of
implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the
interpreter, not XChat.
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> I would like, at this point, to pimp YAML a little.
>
> Not at all over-engineered!
Over engineered in all the right places. :)
I've got it! XML is the C of data languages!
The specification is so small and elegant... well, r
Daniel Pittman wrote:
> One of us must be. Perhaps it was my sarcasm, perhaps I completely
> misunderstood your point. To help clear this up:
>
> There is no difference in the information conveyed using a child tag or
> an attribute of a tag.
>
> The only difference between the two, in SGML, is
22 matches
Mail list logo
