Finally parsing XML is easy when the document produced by an external system exactly mirrors your internal representation, unfortunately if you are interfacing XML documents with external systems this will almost never be the case.
This is true. It is also why XSLT (and other XML transformation languages before anyone flames about the shiteness of XSLT) were invented. Of course, you do still need the documentation to understand the XML to be able to write the stylesheet. If the design of the XML schema (or *shudder* DTD) is badly thought out and hard to understand, well, you can't really legislate for that with out taking the "extensible" bit out of XML.
No I don't make infomercials, nor am I clueless about HTML. I just happen to disagree with you, which, given your stupid mindless insults, is obviously something you don't like happening to you very much. My answer is "biased"? Well yeah I guess it is, biased towards my own point of view. If you don't like that, tough.
Anyway, the fact remains that HTML is a format designed to *display* information in a human readable way.
XML is a format designed to *represent* data in a human readable way.
Sure you could layout your HTML version in the way you described and it would work. But wouldn't it be easier if you used a more appropriate format?
So pages served up using NT + SQLServer +IIS + ASP can only work on IE? Nobody (including Microsoft-based shops) uses ActiveX client-side on their web pages. If they have a brain.
If somebody said pages served using Linux + MySQL + Apache + mod_perl can only work with Netscape, they'd be laughed at.
> You'll be singing a diffrent song when the > Script Kiddies nail you and your servers with a > virus created with C#.....
Which of course would be the fault of the language? Gimme a break
Tell me this. You have an OS with a fairly decent OO RPC framework (COM). Thousands of components have been created using it. You develop a new language. Do you :
a) Not use COM, because some idiot might make a virus (which of course couldn't happen with stuff like C or C++, or even UNIX. (Think about it. A naive sysadmin installs an unknown RPM)
b) Use COM, and immediately give access to many components to users of your new language?
Surely it's not only the fact that it's a government project.
How can an open sourde model guarantee that every single module in the system is properly specified and tested? Surely for saftey critical applications such as ATC, it's neccessary to use some kind of formal development model, which would preclude the vast majority of Free Software developers.
Besides, what would the benefit to the Free Software Community be? How would unrestricted access to the source for an ATC help my neighbour?
Come to that, what would the benefit be in giving away the source code to many "bespoke" projects?
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. It is also why XSLT (and other XML transformation languages before anyone flames about the shiteness of XSLT) were invented. Of course, you do still need the documentation to understand the XML to be able to write the stylesheet. If the design of the XML schema (or *shudder* DTD) is badly thought out and hard to understand, well, you can't really legislate for that with out taking the "extensible" bit out of XML.
No I don't make infomercials, nor am I clueless about HTML. I just happen to disagree with you, which, given your stupid mindless insults, is obviously something you don't like happening to you very much. My answer is "biased"? Well yeah I guess it is, biased towards my own point of view. If you don't like that, tough.
Anyway, the fact remains that HTML is a format designed to *display* information in a human readable way.
XML is a format designed to *represent* data in a human readable way.
Sure you could layout your HTML version in the way you described and it would work. But wouldn't it be easier if you used a more appropriate format?
Or, for online viewing, they can leave it in XML and use a stylesheet.
:-
:-
Also what here looks easier to parse (and therefore to search) to you?
This
<table>
<tr><th>Paragraph Number</th><th>Paragraph></th></td>
<tr><td>1</td><td>blah, blah, blah</td></tr>
</table>
Or this
<paragraph num=1>
blah, blah, blah
</paragraph>
If somebody said pages served using Linux + MySQL + Apache + mod_perl can only work with Netscape, they'd be laughed at.
Which of course would be the fault of the language? Gimme a break
Tell me this. You have an OS with a fairly decent OO RPC framework (COM). Thousands of components have been created using it. You develop a new language. Do you :
a) Not use COM, because some idiot might make a virus (which of course couldn't happen with stuff like C or C++, or even UNIX. (Think about it. A naive sysadmin installs an unknown RPM)
b) Use COM, and immediately give access to many components to users of your new language?
How can an open sourde model guarantee that every single module in the system is properly specified and tested? Surely for saftey critical applications such as ATC, it's neccessary to use some kind of formal development model, which would preclude the vast majority of Free Software developers.
Besides, what would the benefit to the Free Software Community be? How would unrestricted access to the source for an ATC help my neighbour?
Come to that, what would the benefit be in giving away the source code to many "bespoke" projects?
Like the article says, fixes are already on the way. How quickly can Microsoft adapt to such findings? Maybe it's not Microsoft of Borg at all.......