So you are assuming that the countries which own oil fields are filled with idiots that when left to their own devices would simply raise prices until no one would buy it from them, ruining themselves in the process. Great basis for any argument!
Your comparison might make some sense if the only variable which changed between the US and the Soviet Union had been the funding of research. In reality, there are so many variables involved that, well, your comparison is useless.
And if you think that science under the Soviet Union languished, you are wrong.
"stop with the political bullshit" is precisely what I was talking about.
I have read a couple of books by Marx. I guess from your comment that you haven't. Your loss, really. I guess from your comment, also, that you view reading a book by Marx as somewhat disqualifying. Your loss, again. I wonder what you do read... (In particular, what do you read in order to know what Marx writes about!)
You simply cannot correctly parse an generic XML file using an arbitrary DTD without access to the DTD, since the file may very well contain references to entities defined in the DTD. This is not an `issue'. A parser which tries to do it is simply a broken parser.
You seem to be under the impression that you can send ASCII-encoded text without an encoding declaration. That's as wrong as your apparent belief that omitting the doctype can result in an unambiguous semantic for mark up.
don't you find it just a little idiotic to specify in the standard the need to validate against one central description and then complain about it happening too much?
The standard does not say such a thing, at all.
Maybe instead, the schema as specified in the standard should have been validated against a locally stored file with the correct hash.
This is precisely what the standards suggest. Instead of `correct hash' they use the terms `public identifier' and `system identifier'. There is even a whole standard just for the purpose of managing the mapping.
It's one of those little things about XML that caught me as being retarded.
The XML standard does in absolutely no way require this at all nor even hints that it would be a minorly accepted possibility.
Your opinions on XML seem to be quite unsubstantial...
(In case it isn't ovbious, I'm talking out my butt. I really have no clue when it comes to DTD's except that most WYSIWYG web design programs past that garbage in automagically.)
Have you considered that instead of adding disclaimers such as this, it would be quite more useful to be the signal, instead of the noise in/. threads?
You read the GP exactly in the opposite way: he observed that the HTML is not going to validate, probably, and you are saying that the parser is probably going to misparse. You seem to be one of the creators of the content he is object to!
You seem to have missed the fact that ever since SGML came to be there are these PUBLIC identifies which, guess what, are URIs, nicely separated from the SYSTEM identifiers, which are these URLs you seem to think the confused.
The free software movement and the open source movements propose to do that and at the same time work in order to preserve their ability to do so. That pleasurable sharing that you speak about was nice, but as we can very much see nowadays, did not sustain itself: it is now gone, a precious memory no doubt, but no less gone for that. Why is it gone?: precisely because those that practiced that sharing always disregarded the fact that they were not doing anything to preserve the possibility of sharing for them and others.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are assuming that the countries which own oil fields are filled with idiots that when left to their own devices would simply raise prices until no one would buy it from them, ruining themselves in the process. Great basis for any argument!
Your using "Barak Hussein Obama" surely shows that you are quite the analyst...
You should get a copy of the proceedings of the Argentinian trials against the members of the military dictatorships.
I am disgusted that there is even a debate about whether that is torture or not.
Really good point.
Gold does not have inherent value.
How tall a wall would be satisfactory?
You consider the idea of building a wall sane and think that immigrants are a security problem. Oh well...
What exactly does `secure [your] borders' mean? Has any country ever in history achieved it?
Your comparison might make some sense if the only variable which changed between the US and the Soviet Union had been the funding of research. In reality, there are so many variables involved that, well, your comparison is useless.
And if you think that science under the Soviet Union languished, you are wrong.
"stop with the political bullshit" is precisely what I was talking about.
I have read a couple of books by Marx. I guess from your comment that you haven't. Your loss, really. I guess from your comment, also, that you view reading a book by Marx as somewhat disqualifying. Your loss, again. I wonder what you do read... (In particular, what do you read in order to know what Marx writes about!)
You simply cannot correctly parse an generic XML file using an arbitrary DTD without access to the DTD, since the file may very well contain references to entities defined in the DTD. This is not an `issue'. A parser which tries to do it is simply a broken parser.
You seem to be under the impression that you can send ASCII-encoded text without an encoding declaration. That's as wrong as your apparent belief that omitting the doctype can result in an unambiguous semantic for mark up.
The standard does not say such a thing, at all.
Maybe instead, the schema as specified in the standard should have been validated against a locally stored file with the correct hash.This is precisely what the standards suggest. Instead of `correct hash' they use the terms `public identifier' and `system identifier'. There is even a whole standard just for the purpose of managing the mapping.
It's one of those little things about XML that caught me as being retarded.The XML standard does in absolutely no way require this at all nor even hints that it would be a minorly accepted possibility.
Your opinions on XML seem to be quite unsubstantial...
Have you considered that instead of adding disclaimers such as this, it would be quite more useful to be the signal, instead of the noise in /. threads?
You have not ever heard of SGML catalogs, clearly.
Unix is not the only thing which is bound to be reinvented once and again, poorly.
You read the GP exactly in the opposite way: he observed that the HTML is not going to validate, probably, and you are saying that the parser is probably going to misparse. You seem to be one of the creators of the content he is object to!
You seem to have missed the fact that ever since SGML came to be there are these PUBLIC identifies which, guess what, are URIs, nicely separated from the SYSTEM identifiers, which are these URLs you seem to think the confused.
Yes. All the spam you've ever gotten can be tracked back to their posting of your email address. Have you considered legal action?
If you can't really find the copyright information on the W3C schemas and DTDs, then you should probably not be writing software...
Because that allows you to recycle a well know and very much available hierarchical system which already exists. This is explain in the standards.
Then use a blacklist. There is no need for ALL CAPS and swearing... Just avoid being part of the problem.
Well, apart from OSS printer drivers they are mostly unfixable by this "you" you keep talking about ;-)
They are not a disaster. They surely could be better, but you can say that of any piece of software. But they are certainly not a disaster.
You can grab a copy of the kernel repository, history and all, and take his place in a SoupGurunix fork.
If you think that is not going to work well, you might want to thik why?
But, see, therein lies the difference.
The free software movement and the open source movements propose to do that and at the same time work in order to preserve their ability to do so. That pleasurable sharing that you speak about was nice, but as we can very much see nowadays, did not sustain itself: it is now gone, a precious memory no doubt, but no less gone for that. Why is it gone?: precisely because those that practiced that sharing always disregarded the fact that they were not doing anything to preserve the possibility of sharing for them and others.