Famous XML cliches

Discussion in 'XML' started by scooterm@hotmail.com, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
    perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
    without even thinking about it.

    Here is one of my favorites:

    Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    particularly well suited to processing XML data.

    Did you catch that? Kinda like saying:

    Because GinzuFoodSlicer is made out of cheese, it is
    particularly well-suited for slicing cheese.

    Or like saying:

    Because the MitsubishiGeox is made out of pure asphalt,
    it is particularly well-suited for driving on asphalt.
     
    , Aug 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:

    > Here is one of my favorites:
    >
    > Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    > particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    Really ? I have never read such "extreme nonsense" (TM).
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=, Aug 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?= () wrote:
    : wrote:

    : > Here is one of my favorites:
    : >
    : > Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    : > particularly well suited to processing XML data.

    : Really ? I have never read such "extreme nonsense" (TM).

    no, but I smell a new term

    Whereas "foobar" has been the canonical name for a hypothetical function
    which would exist in a real situation, so the term "foobang" would be the
    name of a hypothetical piece of technical nonsense.


    related words:

    "foobanger" -- a person who writes foobangs

    "to foobang" -- to document, write, or discuss in precise detail,
    technical issues that are fundementally flawed.





    --

    This space not for rent.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Aug 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Ian Pilcher Guest

    wrote:
    > Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
    > perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
    > without even thinking about it.
    >
    > Here is one of my favorites:
    >
    > Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    > particularly well suited to processing XML data.
    >


    My favorite is that that product X is "open" because it uses XML.

    --
    ========================================================================
    Ian Pilcher
    ========================================================================
     
    Ian Pilcher, Aug 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter Flynn Guest

    wrote:

    > Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
    > perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
    > without even thinking about it.


    This is probably a troll, but what the hell...

    > Here is one of my favorites:
    >
    > Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    > particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that (least of
    all the people responsible for one of the most popular tools written in
    XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One (W3C Schemas).

    > Did you catch that? Kinda like saying:
    >
    > Because GinzuFoodSlicer is made out of cheese, it is
    > particularly well-suited for slicing cheese.


    Closer would be:

    Because W3C Schemas are written in XML, they must be particularly
    well-suited to specifying XML data :)

    Interesting how the programming community, all with Computer Science
    degrees, which means they presumably understand the importance of data
    modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
    couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
    how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) — and then went blithely
    on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
    documents. <sigh/>

    ///Peter
     
    Peter Flynn, Aug 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    Ian Pilcher wrote:

    > My favorite is that that product X is "open" because it uses XML.


    A close favourite with "Its data model is extensible because it uses
    XML"
     
    , Aug 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Nick Kew Guest

    Peter Flynn wrote:

    > Interesting how the programming community, all with Computer Science
    > degrees,


    Erm, not those of us above a certain age ... compsci was (seen as) a
    mickey-mouse degree in my time. Of course, messing about with computers
    while doing a real degree was a different matter altogether:)

    > which means they presumably understand the importance of data
    > modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
    > couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
    > how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) — and then went blithely
    > on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
    > documents. <sigh/>


    Golly, next thing we know you'll be coming out as Arjun's disciple :)

    It's not at all clear to me which of SGML and XML has the higher
    proportion gratuitous complexity and obscurity. But on hype there
    is of course no contest.

    --
    Not me guv
     
    Nick Kew, Aug 23, 2005
    #7
  8. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:49:53 +0100, Nick Kew <>
    wrote:

    >Peter Flynn wrote:
    >>...which means they presumably understand the importance of data
    >> modelling syntaxes, collectively screamed when XML came out that they
    >> couldn't possibly learn or use two syntaxes (declaration and document; and
    >> how hard declaration syntax was, poor little mites) — and then went blithely
    >> on to implement a schema language in a syntax designed for marking up text
    >> documents. <sigh/>


    >Golly, next thing we know you'll be coming out as Arjun's disciple :)


    And what would be wrong with that? :)

    >It's not at all clear to me which of SGML and XML has the higher
    >proportion gratuitous complexity and obscurity.


    SGML is simple for those who wants to use the standard.

    XML was supposed to be simple (with the added touch of "hey, I can make
    up my own tags as I go"). In practice XML did through away a few of the
    higher benefits of its SGML mother.

    I'm just guessing now but lets say that about 90% of the XSLT
    programming that has been done up til today could be described as a
    reinvention of the wheel if architectural processing of XML instances
    had been allowed already from the start of XML.

    To me; document markup is a piece of cake, figuring out a suitable
    algorithm to control some machine in a real world production line can be
    a very different experience.

    >But on hype there is of course no contest.


    Sadly true :)

    --
    Rex
     
    Jan Roland Eriksson, Aug 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Peter Flynn <> writes:

    > wrote:
    >
    > > Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
    > > perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
    > > without even thinking about it.

    >
    > This is probably a troll, but what the hell...


    Yep.

    >> Here is one of my favorites:


    >> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    > I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that
    > (least of all the people responsible for one of the most popular
    > tools written in XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One
    > (W3C Schemas).


    Wow, have people actually said that? Who? When?

    (Yes, I have heard people claim the XML transfer syntax
    as an advantage, but that's because some people think
    rather highly of XML as a way to make complex structured
    information more easily processable. It has nothing
    to do with whether the information in question is
    a definition of XML vocabularies.)

    Or are you trolling, too, Peter?

    -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
     
    C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Aug 26, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Peter Flynn <> wrote:

    >> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    >I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that (least of
    >all the people responsible for one of the most popular tools written in
    >XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One (W3C Schemas).


    I never heard that said about XML Schemas. What I *did* hear - before
    the spec was completed - was a sort of converse: that because XML
    Schemas will use XML syntax, they will be more amenable to being
    processed by XML tools. This is of course true, but unfortunately the
    complexity of type derivation limits what can be straightforwardly
    extracted from a Schema document using, say, XSLT.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, Aug 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Peter Flynn Guest

    C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

    > Peter Flynn <> writes:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Since XML has been around a while, there seem to be some popular
    >> > perceptions and statments out there that people seem to repeat
    >> > without even thinking about it.

    >>
    >> This is probably a troll, but what the hell...

    >
    > Yep.
    >
    >>> Here is one of my favorites:

    >
    >>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.

    >
    >> I was going to say that I didn't think anyone had ever said that
    >> (least of all the people responsible for one of the most popular
    >> tools written in XML, XSLT), but then I remembered The Other One
    >> (W3C Schemas).

    >
    > Wow, have people actually said that? Who? When?


    I meant that I don't think anyone ever said it about XSLT.
    I wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
    it about W3C Schemas.

    > (Yes, I have heard people claim the XML transfer syntax
    > as an advantage, but that's because some people think
    > rather highly of XML as a way to make complex structured
    > information more easily processable. It has nothing
    > to do with whether the information in question is
    > a definition of XML vocabularies.)


    Ah, but I was talking about the cases where the user thought it *was*.

    > Or are you trolling, too, Peter?


    Moi? <look type="innocent"/>

    ///Peter
     
    Peter Flynn, Aug 26, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Peter Flynn <> wrote:

    >>>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >>>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    >I wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
    >it about W3C Schemas.


    Go on, show us *one*.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, Aug 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Richard Tobin () wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : Peter Flynn <> wrote:

    : >>>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    : >>>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.

    : >I wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
    : >it about W3C Schemas.

    : Go on, show us *one*.

    That would be counting.


    --

    This programmer available for rent.
     
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Aug 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Peter Flynn Guest

    Richard Tobin wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Peter Flynn <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >>>>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.

    >
    >>I wouldn't like to count the number of people who have claimed
    >>it about W3C Schemas.


    [Bear in mind that by "it" I am referring to the belief that using XML
    document syntax to describe the document structure somehow makes it better
    suited to the task. I am *not* referring to the indisputably useful
    side-effect that you can read the Schema during document processing
    using XSL[T].]

    > Go on, show us *one*.


    Good grief. You think I was recording their names?

    Virtually everyone in the e-commerce field who took one look at DTDs
    and said "Aaarrrggghh, I can't use that."

    Everyone who ever subscribed to the "if XML is so smart, how come it
    can't describe itself" movement.

    Read the logs of the XML SIG.

    Several senior developers I spoke to a few weeks ago who had never even
    considered DTDs because it was natural to them to use the same language for
    both document and definition (this one baffles me for the reasons I gave
    earlier).

    The numerous pundits and gurus who have been claiming for years that text
    documents will have to use W3C Schemas because DTDs will be dead soon.

    I won't go on. In one or two cases which were personal conversations I do of
    course have a name but these were private discussions.

    ///Peter
     
    Peter Flynn, Aug 27, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Peter Flynn <> wrote:

    >>>>>> Because [FooWhizBangTool] is written in XML, it is
    >>>>>> particularly well suited to processing XML data.


    >Virtually everyone in the e-commerce field who took one look at DTDs
    >and said "Aaarrrggghh, I can't use that."


    >Several senior developers I spoke to a few weeks ago who had never even
    >considered DTDs because it was natural to them to use the same language for
    >both document and definition (this one baffles me for the reasons I gave
    >earlier).


    >The numerous pundits and gurus who have been claiming for years that text
    >documents will have to use W3C Schemas because DTDs will be dead soon.


    But none of these amounts to the ridiculous claim quoted at the top.
    They are all much more plausible - if somewhat overstated - views.

    >Everyone who ever subscribed to the "if XML is so smart, how come it
    >can't describe itself" movement.


    This one is just silly, and I never heard anyone say it.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, Aug 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    > compsci was (seen as) a mickey-mouse degree in my time

    As someone who read CS at a certain establishment a couple of years
    before you got there, I resent that! Any fule kno that Land Economy was
    the true dosser's degree (closely followed by HPS).

    --
    Peter Headland
     
    , Aug 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Nick Kew Guest

    wrote:
    >>compsci was (seen as) a mickey-mouse degree in my time

    >
    >
    > As someone who read CS at a certain establishment a couple of years
    > before you got there, I resent that! Any fule kno that Land Economy was
    > the true dosser's degree (closely followed by HPS).
    >

    Yeah, land economy was there for the ultra-rich, so that those without
    a hope in hell of earning a real degree could get a qualification to
    take over the ancestral estates. Noone is suggesting that compsci
    was even remotely like that.

    OTOH, when three (of ten in my college and year) maths students
    failed outright at the end of the second year[1], compsci was the
    obvious escape route (for the one who still wanted a degree) ...

    [1] That's when years of idleness - prompted by school work having
    been mindnumblingly trivial - caught up with us. My own second year
    result was nothing to be proud of, and a deep shock when you've
    always taken top marks for granted.

    --
    Not me guv
     
    Nick Kew, Aug 29, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. loser
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,339
    loser
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. rich murphy
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,465
  3. Lew
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,055
    Mike Schilling
    Mar 23, 2009
  4. Alicia The Cook

    Famous Internet Chef

    Alicia The Cook, May 18, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    Alicia The Cook
    May 18, 2009
  5. peter
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    387
    Dave Searles
    Oct 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page