For the time being, DTDs are going to be required for defining new XML grammars - Schemas are still brand new, and tool support is weak to nonexistant.
DTDs will probably stick around in one form or another for the next few years - its unfortunate that Schemas couldn't have been part of XML 1.0 - unfortunately the co-existance of DTDs and Schemas will cause code bloat as tools will basically need to support both.
Open standard or not - there's absolutely no value in forking a DTD. Unless you think there was maybe some value in all of the "modifications" Netscape and Microsoft made to the HTML DTD, for a simple example - its the same in this case.
Its not so much that the net is eroding privacy, but that it is making it easier for you to discover how little privacy you have had most of your life. Anyone born after 1970 certainly has had permanent computerized records all of their adult lives.
Ironically some of the people who seem to bitch the most about privacy seem to be the same ones listing every detail about themselves on their personal web page.
There's no way around it - you have no privacy, deal with it.
Like any technique or technology, OO methods must ultimately be incoporated into a larger scheme of structured and generic programming (and perhaps one day, functional programming).
Ultimately, multi-paradigm languages that can absorb new techniques as they mature, like C++ and perl, will be the winners. I have yet to see a mono-paradigm language have sustained appeal over a five to seven year period.
And of course no one has mentioned that PC browsers are far more feature-rich than the IA browsers...yes, I actually do want to view quicktime and shockwave and send html email.
People could care less about the form factor of the box - does it run IE? Can it view quicktime? Can it play shockwave. The answer to all these questions for any given appliance out there is NO.
That is why they will die - they are all crippled in features.
Everyone is producing one of these prototype units, but no one has provided a useful answer about why I should buy one, or anyone for that matter.
The bottom line is that they all feature crippled browsing experiences because they feature a non-standard embedded browser.
You can't market a browsing product to the public and tell them that attachments, html email, and mulitmedia are off limits - in that case they might as well stick with their PC.
3Com will drop Audrey within three months.
Yet Heroin will NEVER be legalized
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 2
Its interesting that the movie focuses on heroin addiction (the duaghter) and yet people here are talking about the benefits of legalizing pot.
The movie didn't spend two seconds on the topic of pot, which is essentially pseudo-legal now anyway (when was the last time you knew someone who was busted for smoking up?)
Heroin and cocaine are the issues at hand, which are probably way too dangerous to ever be legalized in any way.
No, consumption based on debt is never good for the economy, because ultimately a fair number of people default on these debts.
The savings rate in America is at an all-time low, even worse than during the eighties. Most people are spending themsevles into oblivion and then whining when the axe falls. They deserve what they get.
Yahoo is valued greater than GM, that bubble's gonna burst.
Have you been in a cave for two years? Yahoo has already cratered in the market, but the paychecks are still coming through and they are still meeting their numbers every quarter. Ebay too.
Of course I'm not arguing that these companies are sitting pretty, but they are in no dnager whatsoever of going under, not even close.
In fact, you could argue that things are going according to strategy - both of these companies should comes out of the downturn with most of their competition wiped out, allowing them to raise fees for advertising and services without fear of losing customers (immediately). This happens in any competitive market - eventually two or three players emerge who gradually push prices back up for services or merchandise once the competition is pushed out.
But really, Mr Fartsica, you should take a look at the big old world out there. Many people have mortgages, wives, kids, etc. etc. and actually need their monthly paycheck.
People in this situation should have even more money saved up. I'm not going to back off this opinion - most people don't follow any common sense rules of saving - quite the contrary, they spend not only their cash in hand but their projected earnings. I have no pity for these folks. They should have thought of their mortgage when they were buying that third computer or the swimming pool.
Amazon, Yahoo, EBay, AOL...none of them are laying off programmers...in fact, they're still hiring.
Thats not even counting the numerous businesses that are moving substantial portions of their operations to the web (like, say, every bank, bookstore, brokerage house, etc.).
Your employer owes you nothing. You owe them nothing. Their gratitude to you is as nonexistant as your gratitude to them.
Every programmer worth their salt makes enough to save some on the side - if you don't have enough money saved up to last you six months of lean living in the event of a layoff, either your expenses are too high, or you're a moron. Either way, you screwed yourself.
Pink slips happen, and anyone with a brain can see it coming by at least a month.
Apple is a hardware company. OSX helps them sell boxes. Apple is not interested in helping to sell other people's boxes, because other people's boxes are icky looking and have floppy drives.
Nice try, but MS has locked up corporate desktops probably for good. Apple has a horrible track record in the enterprise (anyone remember their brief foray into enterpriuse servers??), and no one is going to put their ass on the line rewiring the office for a platform that still has crappy software support from most ISVs.
Like it or lump it, Apple is a hardware company. OSX is a means to forward sales of Apple hardware. X86 ports of this code will only be released if Apple moves to X86 processors for their own computers - also unlikely.
Yes, there have been rumors of a port already existing - don't hold your breath for this to ever see the light of day. No one wants to have to deal with the umpteen combinations of hardware in the X86 world - even if Apple wanted to release the code, it could never adequately support it.
I doubt many managers are aware of the SAIR program, but will probably look upon any linux credit on the resume as favorable.
Of course, once hired, if that employee proves to be uttlerly clueless, that will reflect back on the SAIR coursework and likely not be as meaningful for the next candidate. The abilities of the early graduates will ultimately determine the value of the program.
It seems that many of the posters here are vastly overestimating the maturity of the current XSL implementations. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience, everything out there right now is essentially broken toys.
Sticking with Java for XML is probably your best bet, in any case. Whether by accident or conerted effort, Java has stayed about two paces ahead of the other languages for XML development. Perl handles text wonderfully, but is mostly reliant on expat, which is nonvalidating.
Try JDOM. Sun is planning a similar "official" API, but its unclear when it will be as mature as JDOM.
XSLT can just as easily be used on the server side
No, it cannot - ever read any moderately complex XSL style sheets? Go to XML.com and check some out and report back to me on their "ease of use".
a separate document that is much easier for programmers and not-such-programmers alike to deal with, without breaking your application.
It seems to me that you are indirectly claiming that XSL is readable. Are we talking about the same standard??
Look, I've worked in the SGML and XML document translation industry for years. DSSSL didn't fly and XSL won't fly, so don't preach to those markets because I know how they work. XSLT was dead on arrival, much like DSSSL. I don't know of anyone doing volume tranformations that is even remotely considering this dud technology.
There is already software to address this, and the best solution is at the OS level anyway - if they can't see small text, then it makes sense to increase the font size of ALL text on their screen, not just their browser. Sorry, web client-based solutions are not the way to go here.
Batch software
Access a database directly, you'll get better performance.
Different departments within an organization who need to access the same data in different ways
People have been dangling this out for years, and still no one can come up with a compelling case where it is worthwhile to implement, or where it is actually needed - Oh, over in accounting they need to see the headline in helvetica, not times! These are non-issues.
What if the client wants to get the data displayed in a format they can control?
Who wants this?
Really, when was the last time that a client needed to do reformatting outside of font resizing? Its amusing to take the high road to that place where clients receive display-agnostic content and render it according to stylesheets, but guess what - there's no demand for this functionality, and imagining a perceived demand is what is going to leave us with 100MB browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
DTDs will probably stick around in one form or another for the next few years - its unfortunate that Schemas couldn't have been part of XML 1.0 - unfortunately the co-existance of DTDs and Schemas will cause code bloat as tools will basically need to support both.
Open standard or not - there's absolutely no value in forking a DTD. Unless you think there was maybe some value in all of the "modifications" Netscape and Microsoft made to the HTML DTD, for a simple example - its the same in this case.
Ironically some of the people who seem to bitch the most about privacy seem to be the same ones listing every detail about themselves on their personal web page.
There's no way around it - you have no privacy, deal with it.
Whats wrong with that?
Ultimately, multi-paradigm languages that can absorb new techniques as they mature, like C++ and perl, will be the winners. I have yet to see a mono-paradigm language have sustained appeal over a five to seven year period.
And of course no one has mentioned that PC browsers are far more feature-rich than the IA browsers...yes, I actually do want to view quicktime and shockwave and send html email.
That is why they will die - they are all crippled in features.
The bottom line is that they all feature crippled browsing experiences because they feature a non-standard embedded browser.
You can't market a browsing product to the public and tell them that attachments, html email, and mulitmedia are off limits - in that case they might as well stick with their PC.
3Com will drop Audrey within three months.
The movie didn't spend two seconds on the topic of pot, which is essentially pseudo-legal now anyway (when was the last time you knew someone who was busted for smoking up?)
Heroin and cocaine are the issues at hand, which are probably way too dangerous to ever be legalized in any way.
The savings rate in America is at an all-time low, even worse than during the eighties. Most people are spending themsevles into oblivion and then whining when the axe falls. They deserve what they get.
Have you been in a cave for two years? Yahoo has already cratered in the market, but the paychecks are still coming through and they are still meeting their numbers every quarter. Ebay too.
Of course I'm not arguing that these companies are sitting pretty, but they are in no dnager whatsoever of going under, not even close.
In fact, you could argue that things are going according to strategy - both of these companies should comes out of the downturn with most of their competition wiped out, allowing them to raise fees for advertising and services without fear of losing customers (immediately). This happens in any competitive market - eventually two or three players emerge who gradually push prices back up for services or merchandise once the competition is pushed out.
People in this situation should have even more money saved up. I'm not going to back off this opinion - most people don't follow any common sense rules of saving - quite the contrary, they spend not only their cash in hand but their projected earnings. I have no pity for these folks. They should have thought of their mortgage when they were buying that third computer or the swimming pool.
Thats not even counting the numerous businesses that are moving substantial portions of their operations to the web (like, say, every bank, bookstore, brokerage house, etc.).
Every programmer worth their salt makes enough to save some on the side - if you don't have enough money saved up to last you six months of lean living in the event of a layoff, either your expenses are too high, or you're a moron. Either way, you screwed yourself.
Pink slips happen, and anyone with a brain can see it coming by at least a month.
Apple is already on shaky ground with ISVs - moving to a new architecture would be suicide.
Apple can't afford to revisit the pain of the 680x0 -> PPC migration.
Added to which, the main point is that Steve Jobs abhors the PC platform, and thats why Apple will never move to PCs.
Apple is a hardware company. OSX helps them sell boxes. Apple is not interested in helping to sell other people's boxes, because other people's boxes are icky looking and have floppy drives.
Nice try, but MS has locked up corporate desktops probably for good. Apple has a horrible track record in the enterprise (anyone remember their brief foray into enterpriuse servers??), and no one is going to put their ass on the line rewiring the office for a platform that still has crappy software support from most ISVs.
Yes, there have been rumors of a port already existing - don't hold your breath for this to ever see the light of day. No one wants to have to deal with the umpteen combinations of hardware in the X86 world - even if Apple wanted to release the code, it could never adequately support it.
They are located here.
Of course, once hired, if that employee proves to be uttlerly clueless, that will reflect back on the SAIR coursework and likely not be as meaningful for the next candidate. The abilities of the early graduates will ultimately determine the value of the program.
Sticking with Java for XML is probably your best bet, in any case. Whether by accident or conerted effort, Java has stayed about two paces ahead of the other languages for XML development. Perl handles text wonderfully, but is mostly reliant on expat, which is nonvalidating.
Try JDOM. Sun is planning a similar "official" API, but its unclear when it will be as mature as JDOM.
No, it cannot - ever read any moderately complex XSL style sheets? Go to XML.com and check some out and report back to me on their "ease of use".
a separate document that is much easier for programmers and not-such-programmers alike to deal with, without breaking your application.
It seems to me that you are indirectly claiming that XSL is readable. Are we talking about the same standard??
Look, I've worked in the SGML and XML document translation industry for years. DSSSL didn't fly and XSL won't fly, so don't preach to those markets because I know how they work. XSLT was dead on arrival, much like DSSSL. I don't know of anyone doing volume tranformations that is even remotely considering this dud technology.
HTML has been about presentation since day one.
Or do you associate some semantic meaning with boldface type?
There is already software to address this, and the best solution is at the OS level anyway - if they can't see small text, then it makes sense to increase the font size of ALL text on their screen, not just their browser. Sorry, web client-based solutions are not the way to go here.
Batch software
Access a database directly, you'll get better performance.
Different departments within an organization who need to access the same data in different ways
People have been dangling this out for years, and still no one can come up with a compelling case where it is worthwhile to implement, or where it is actually needed - Oh, over in accounting they need to see the headline in helvetica, not times! These are non-issues.
Who wants this?
Really, when was the last time that a client needed to do reformatting outside of font resizing? Its amusing to take the high road to that place where clients receive display-agnostic content and render it according to stylesheets, but guess what - there's no demand for this functionality, and imagining a perceived demand is what is going to leave us with 100MB browsers.