On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Peter Corlett wrote:
Is it also Microsoft's fault that you (and other posters) are sending me
a direct copy of your replies even though I'm obviously actively
participating in the list and will thus be reading all of the traffic?
Some people like this behaviour. If you
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 06:51:46PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Peter Corlett wrote:
Is it also Microsoft's fault that you (and other posters) are sending me
a direct copy of your replies even though I'm obviously actively
participating in the list and will thus be reading
On Sat, 1 May 2010, David Cantrell wrote:
Some people like this behaviour.
Hands up who thinks sending two copies of the same message to someone is
anything other than retarded.
It's fairly normal on the IETF lists, for one example. For another, see
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Let's not forget the urge of Excel to think of strings of five digits as
US postal codes: you have to go through a perverse ritual of quoting
to protect those.
=Hate.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT
On 2010-04-29, at 06:26, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:09, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
Last time I had to use SOAP, the libraries in use at either end
couldn't
handle some data structures we needed. The solution? CSV,
uuencoded,
as a blob in SOAP.
Blimey, your SOAP
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:32:50PM +, James Laver wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Joshua Rodman wrote:
At my current company we encode xml inside the xml, because the inner
xml is malformed.
Sounds like HTML inside Atom...
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY
* Tony Finch d...@dotat.at [2010-05-02 21:50]:
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Joshua Rodman wrote:
At my current company we encode xml inside the xml, because
the inner xml is malformed.
Sounds like HTML inside Atom...
Don't blame us, we tried to fight it the hardest we could.
Unfortunately RSS had
On 29 Apr 2010, at 20:53, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
Surely you filter on ^TO_mailinglist and not on anything silly like
whether it says [mailinglist] in the subject?
I filter based on List-Id:, or if it's missing, some other header that's
obviously going to be unique and unchanging for that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 02:47:26PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote:
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
Funnily enough, that's what
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:09, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
Last time I had to use SOAP, the libraries in use at either end couldn't
handle some data structures we needed. The solution? CSV, uuencoded,
as a blob in SOAP.
Blimey, your SOAP implementations must have been bad if CSV was an
Peter Corlett ab...@cabal.org.uk writes:
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:09, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
Last time I had to use SOAP, the libraries in use at either end couldn't
handle some data structures we needed. The solution? CSV, uuencoded,
as a blob in SOAP.
Blimey, your SOAP implementations
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:53:16 +1000, Daniel Pittman
dan...@rimspace.net wrote:
Peter Corlett ab...@cabal.org.uk writes:
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:09, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
Last time I had to use SOAP, the libraries in use at either end couldn't
handle some data structures we needed.
What about the fact that everything in CSV is a STRING? That there is
no difference between an empty field and an undefined field and that
Microsoft (sorry, they keep fucking things up) Excel converts
everything that looks like a date to a US date, even if correctly
formatted as ISO, so
On 29 Apr 2010, at 13:53, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
[...]
See that we can deduce ALL hate to be blamable to Microsoft :)
Eventually we can find the relation between something going wrong or
counter-intuitive to be Microsoft's fault. I like that!
Is it also Microsoft's fault that you (and other
On 2010.4.29 5:58 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 29 Apr 2010, at 13:53, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
[...]
See that we can deduce ALL hate to be blamable to Microsoft :)
Eventually we can find the relation between something going wrong or
counter-intuitive to be Microsoft's fault. I like that!
Is it
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
[nothing but the subject line]
Indeed. 'nuff said.
--Dave
On 27 Apr 2010, at 13:28, Dave Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
[nothing but the subject line]
Indeed. 'nuff said.
*seconded*
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 14:32, Peter Corlett ab...@cabal.org.uk wrote:
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
Quite.
--
Philip Newton philip.new...@gmail.com
On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 27 Apr 2010, at 13:28, Dave Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthew King wrote:
[nothing but the subject line]
Indeed. 'nuff said.
*seconded*
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
No REST for the wicked.
Josh
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
In the same vein:
Subject: SOAP
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
--James
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 15:47, Peter Corlett ab...@cabal.org.uk wrote:
On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote:
[...]
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
Funnily enough
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
What did the S in SOAP stand for again? I keep forgetting. Nothing
comes to mind, really.
It doesn't any more. Microsoft had an epiphany that SOAP was not a
simple object access protocol and gave up the expansion.
--James
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 16:02, James Laver j...@jameslaver.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
What did the S in SOAP stand for again? I keep forgetting. Nothing
comes to mind, really.
It doesn't any more. Microsoft had an epiphany that SOAP was not a
On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote:
[...]
It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml
(with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries
problem.
Funnily enough, that's what *I* had to resort to when dealing with SOAP at a
FTSE250
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2007-09-29 11:40]:
On 28-Sep-2007, at 23:23, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
XHTML is indeed based on XML and therefore doesn't have `/`
any more than XML in general does.
Then I guess that mustn't actually be enforced. What a
surprise. :)
That's if you send
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [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
On 27-Sep-2007, at 06:32, tgies wrote:
But, for pity's sake, if you are going to define a new XML schema,
please do not be a complete retard.
You mean
keyAreaCode/key
string281/string
keyCity/key
stringHouston/string
keyCompany/key
string/string
If there's only one of something, it likely needs to be an attribute.
Good rule.
I like the way Konfabulator does it.
They go, like, our XML parser doesn't care whether a unique whatever-
you-call-it is an attribute or a nested tag, do whatever floats your
boat, they're the same bloody
On 27-Sep-2007, at 13:03, demerphq wrote:
I don't buy the its all the same argument. Its not. Tags are
containers which can contain other containers, attributes are inherent
properties of the tag to which they belong.
Both are part of the contents of the tag.
I will agree that you shouldn't
like b/bold text/ are also more compact than
bbold text/b, therefore they got sucked out of XML.
Hateful buggers.
I'm surprised XML retained tag/ or tagfoo/ instead of forcing
tag/tag and tagfoo/tag.
On 28 Sep 2007, at 23:23, Peter da Silva wrote:
I'm surprised XML retained [...] tagfoo/
That exists?
On 28-Sep-2007, at 23:23, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
XHTML is indeed based on XML and therefore doesn't have `/` any
more than XML in general does.
Then I guess that mustn't actually be enforced. What a surprise. :)
On 27 Sep 2007, at 14:10, 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!
Also I'm wary of any technology that calls itself yet another
something.
(Yeah yeah, I know YAML officially stands
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
libraries^W^Hs. Don't forget to
write an XML Schema so you can know what all those tags mean,
or maybe you get a DTD we haven't worked that bit out yet. And
don't forget your XSLT so you can translate this stuff. And CSS
so you can make it easy on the eye. And XPath so you can search
json2yaml`
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use YAML;
use JSON;
print YAML::Dump( jsonToObj( join , ) );
Oh, you want to actually DO something with it? Here, bolt on
this GIGANTIC PILE of standard libraries^W^Hs. Don't forget to
write an XML Schema so you can know what all those tags mean
* Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com [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
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
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?
probably not be using XML.
.
I am also saying that the attributes have more relaxed rules applied
than the tags, something that is essentially a mistake in my opinion,
because it creates a get out of design free card.
Finally, of note: we were talking about the abomination of XML that was
designed by taking SGML, pulling
, is that attributes have
less rules applied. They can, and often are, more informal.
And that the attribute form is a hell of a lot more compact and easier to
eyeball. Sometimes humans have to read and write this crap, ya know?
As insane as it is that anyone would pick XML as a human data format. I'm
* that. Having to deal with more and more XML
crap at the protocol level has really driven that home.
Why, yes, EPP, I /am/ looking at you. Felching miserable half-caste
screwed up abortion of a protocol.
I mean, seriously. You want XML for data exchange, fine. Use it. It
is a terrible choice
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:
a/
?a?
Here is another:
?b?
b/
If you concatenate them, you can't tell which PI goes with which
instance. (Though the problem goes
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
On 2007-09-27 at 06:56 -0500, tgies wrote:
font
color#FF/color
faceComic Sans MS/face
textHello/text
/font. Oh my God.
paragraphsentenceword pos=pronounYou/wordword pos=verb
subpos=auxilliaryshould/wordword pos=verbbe/wordword
pos=adjectivegrateful/wordword pos=conjunctivethat/word
Attention jerks,
Okay, so you're going to use XML for every imaginable thing which you
can possibly contrive a way to use XML for, including uncompressed RGB
raster images, large relational databases, and the syntax for new
procedural imperative programming languages. Fine. Fine. I suppose I
can't
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:56:06AM -0500, tgies wrote:
Attention jerks,
Okay, so you're going to use XML for every imaginable thing which you
can possibly contrive a way to use XML for, including uncompressed RGB
raster images, large relational databases, and the syntax for new
procedural
On 9/27/07, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote:
Erm... you do actually know that this - why do the SGML-derived mark-up
languages have both elements and attributes and what should be an
element and what should be an attribute - is an argument (or a religious
war, whichever way you look at
On 9/27/07, tgies tg...@tgies.net wrote:
On 9/27/07, Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net wrote:
Erm... you do actually know that this - why do the SGML-derived mark-up
languages have both elements and attributes and what should be an
element and what should be an attribute - is an argument (or
On 9/27/07, Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net wrote:
...you were going so well and then, suddenly...
I think one of us is missing something here, because you appear
actually to be agreeing with me completely?
tgies
Tony Gies tony.g...@gmail.com writes:
On 9/27/07, Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net wrote:
...you were going so well and then, suddenly...
I think one of us is missing something here, because you appear
actually to be agreeing with me completely?
One of us must be. Perhaps it was my
54 matches
Mail list logo
