Slashdot Mirror

Its not just Java (pah, spit, pah), its .NET as well : check this article out that describes the issue far better than I can tell it:

best quote from that article: If I set "ValidationType = ValidationType.None" it STILL downloads the DTD even though it doesn't validate against it. I get an XmlException when I set "ProhibitDtd = true"

Tha answer, of course, is to write your own resolver.

Three comments:

1) VB.NET offers 'scripting', or 'late-binding' capabilities that allow you to
write one line of VB code, where C# needs 20 or more.
Example: Late binding myths.

2) VB.NET exposes some elements of the underlying CLR (runtime) that C# hides,
e.g. a 'where' clause during catching of an exception. Link

3) Upcoming VB.NET (with DLinq & XLinq) will include native support for XML, whereas
C# has no such plans. Link

Personally, for new projects, I would choose C# over VB.NET.
Good luck!
George

I've spent the weekend writing up some CSS layouts, and I'd previously come upon the same thought as you have--CSS would be a lot better off with definable constants. It wouldn't take an unreasonable expansion to the language, either; heck, there's already a similar (albeit not very well-supported) functionality built in for other purposes, in the form of the @font-face rule. Extending that a bit, as I see it, it would be almost trivial to standardize something like @constant { name: "light-text"; value: "#3fc" }. That would definitely make stylesheets more maintainable and expandable--I could produce entirely new color schemes in a static CSS file just by editing some values at the beginning. A variable system like that seems much more in line with the overall spirit of CSS than the current method of repeatedly referencing the exact color or relying on other means to work out the layout.

1. Code Project
2. SQL Server Central
3. .NET Weblogs, SQL Junkies
4. ASP.NET forums
5. 4 Guys from Rolla
6. ASP Alliance mailing lists
7. CodeGuru discussion forums
8. TopXML discussion forums - this is mostly about Microsoft XML technologies
9. .NET Junkies
10. SQL Team .

Beware: The tutorials often have subtle errors, which will bite you in the ass later on. Better to go with http://www.topxml.com ( topxml )

Dimitre Novatchev has published a proof for functional programming called "The Functional Programming Language XSLT - A proof through examples"

Until now it was believed that although XSLT is based on functional programming ideas, it is not as yet a full functional programming language, as it lacks the ability to treat functions as a first-class data type. Based on numerous concrete XSLT implementations of some of the major functional programming design patterns, including some of the most generic list-processing and tree-processing functions, this article provides ample proof that XSLT is in fact a full-pledged functional programming language. The presented code forms the base of a first XSLT functional programming library. It is emphasized that a decision to include higher-order functions support in XPath 2.0 will make functional programming in XSLT even more straightforward, natural and convenient.

The interesting question here is SHOULD XSLT be used in this way?

Dimitre Novatchev has published a proof for functional programming called "The Functional Programming Language XSLT - A proof through examples"

Until now it was believed that although XSLT is based on functional programming ideas, it is not as yet a full functional programming language, as it lacks the ability to treat functions as a first-class data type. Based on numerous concrete XSLT implementations of some of the major functional programming design patterns, including some of the most generic list-processing and tree-processing functions, this article provides ample proof that XSLT is in fact a full-pledged functional programming language. The presented code forms the base of a first XSLT functional programming library. It is emphasized that a decision to include higher-order functions support in XPath 2.0 will make functional programming in XSLT even more straightforward, natural and convenient.

The interesting question here is SHOULD XSLT be used in this way?