ASP format of received xml

[aoifey1234]

I have a client who is using an asp page to receive xml files from my company.
When the client views the xml through a browser it is formatted correctly
i.e. indented properly etc.
However, the client also uses wordpad to view the xml and when using wordpad
the xml appears on one line.
Is it possible to change the settings of the asp page so that it formats the
xml correctly?
Thanks in advance

 

[Anthony Jones]

I have a client who is using an asp page to receive xml files from my
company.
When the client views the xml through a browser it is formatted correctly
i.e. indented properly etc.
However, the client also uses wordpad to view the xml and when using
wordpad
the xml appears on one line.
Is it possible to change the settings of the asp page so that it formats
the
xml correctly?

It is but don't. Ask them why they want to read the XML file in Wordpad.

If they must open the XML file in some form of editor. Get them to use some
free editor that understands and can format XML.
For example Microsofts Web Developer Express.

 

[aoifey1234]

Thank you for the response. Unfortunately they are not open to the idea of
changing which editor they use. The xml files used to be sent to a third
party who also used an asp page to receive the xml. They then forwarded the
xml file to my client. We have now cut out the third party and we are sending
directly to the client.
Since this changeover the xml no longer displays correctly through wordpad.
We have investigated all matters on this side and the only other possible
solution is the asp settings on their side.
I don't have much knowledge in this area. It may not be the most advisable
solution but could someone please explain how to change the settings of the
asp page so that it formats the xml correctly?
Many thanks.

 

[Anthony Jones]

Thank you for the response. Unfortunately they are not open to the idea of
changing which editor they use. The xml files used to be sent to a third
party who also used an asp page to receive the xml. They then forwarded
the
xml file to my client. We have now cut out the third party and we are
sending
directly to the client.
Since this changeover the xml no longer displays correctly through
wordpad.
We have investigated all matters on this side and the only other possible
solution is the asp settings on their side.
I don't have much knowledge in this area. It may not be the most advisable
solution but could someone please explain how to change the settings of
the
asp page so that it formats the xml correctly?
Many thanks.

You can't change any settings. You need to change the way the XML is built
to include the appropriate CR, LF and tab character sequences to create a
formatted XML file that will be displayed as they expect in WordPad. If you
want some help with that you're going to need to post a snippet of the code
you are using to build the XML currently.

I'm surprised by the number of times I come across immovable requirements
because the 'customer/boss demands it' that are just plain dumb. Have you
asked them why they _must_ be able to view the file in WordPad? What was
their answer? I suspect they are making something harder work than it needs
be. You could redirect your efforts in giving them a solution to that and
thereby scoring some browny points whilst at the same time avoiding doing
something dumb.

 

[aoifey1234]

I presumed this was a forum to ask for ASP advice and not advice on how to
deal with the client. The fact is that before the changeover the client could
view the xml how they wanted and now they cannot. Instead of, in my opinion,
passing the book with a simple "well, maybe you should use another editor", I
feel that the better option is to come up with a solution.
We have managed a workaround which we are intending to use, so the client is
happy.
"They _must_ be able" to view the file in wordpad as they are simply looking
at the files on a server with no other editor available to them.
Thanks for the additional advice, however I would have preferred an actual
answer to my question which unfortunately I did not get.
To use your own words......."I'm surprised by the number of times I come
across people" who waste time and resources answering a thread in which they
have provided no answer.
I am disappointed to be honest. I came to this forum to ask for ASP advice
and instead I feel that I am being criticised for trying to keep the client
happy. PLEASE!
Thanks again for the ...ahem.... advice

 

[Anthony Jones]

I presumed this was a forum to ask for ASP advice and not advice on how to
deal with the client.

Welcome to usenet. What people who free-of-charge choose to offer as advice
is their own business. Advising some one to perpetute daft behaviour is
something I try to avoid. However I feel I was open minded enough to ask
questions as to why these customers wanted to do what they did. After all I
may have had other options armed with more info.

The fact is that before the changeover the client could
view the xml how they wanted and now they cannot. Instead of, in my
opinion,
passing the book with a simple "well, maybe you should use another
editor", I
feel that the better option is to come up with a solution.

Thats fine. Perhaps you should have said that before.

We have managed a workaround which we are intending to use, so the client
is
happy.

Well done.

"They _must_ be able" to view the file in wordpad as they are simply
looking
at the files on a server with no other editor available to them.
Thanks for the additional advice, however I would have preferred an actual
answer to my question which unfortunately I did not get.

I would have prefered to answer your question more fully however I did ask
for a snippet of your code to show you how you might achieve you aim. You
have not supplied that.

To use your own words......."I'm surprised by the number of times I come
across people" who waste time and resources answering a thread in which
they
have provided no answer.

Like a said this is usenet. I'm free to make whatever observations I like.
You may have started the thread but you do not own it.

I am disappointed to be honest. I came to this forum to ask for ASP advice
and instead I feel that I am being criticised for trying to keep the
client
happy. PLEASE!
Thanks again for the ...ahem.... advice

I'm disappointed also. 1) the advice is well meant. 2) you did very little
to help me provide you with an answer.

 

[aoifey1234]

"What people who free-of-charge choose to offer as advice is their own
business."

I can argue that what clients request of the people on their pay roll is
their business. If I wanted advice on how to deal with the client, I would go
to a more suitable site. I had already stated that "Unfortunately they are
not open to the idea of changing which editor they use" but you still replied
to suggest that they should change editor. A waste of your own time and mine
as I had already stated that this was not to be the case.
And just because in your opinion it amounts to daft behaviour, does not mean
that is the case.

"I feel that the better option is to come up with a solution."
"Thats fine. Perhaps you should have said that before."

I thought that the fact that I was ASKING for a solution may have indicated
that I was LOOKING for a solution???
Thankfully another member on this very site posted a more suitable solution
on a different thread in relation to Biztalk. As I said previously, I dont
have much knowledge in the area of ASP. I will admit freely to that. It was a
final suggestion that it may have been something to do with the ASP settings
they had. We have no overview of the setup from the clients side. Perhaps
that is why the information is vague. Perhaps that is why I came to this
thread for help. I have never claimed to be an expert in this field, i ASKED
for help. It's just a pity it wasn't available.

It is also my own business to ask for genuine advice which is why I asked
"It may not be the most advisable solution but could SOMEONE please explain
how to change the settings of the asp page so that it formats the xml
correctly". I have never claimed to "own" the thread. I was hoping for some
enlightenment.

"Welcome to usenet"
I don't think you should blacken the good work that this site does. I do not
have any issue with the site, that is why I used it!
You may post on this site but that does not mean you own it.

Advice is one thing, but I do not think this is helpful: "I'm surprised by
the number of times I come across immovable requirements because the
'customer/boss demands it' that are just plain dumb."

A reply like that discourages me from using this site, it is not
constructive in the slightest. However, I will continue to use this site
because in most cases the people who reply, reply with useable solutions.

 

[Evertjan.]

=?Utf-8?B?YW9pZmV5MTIzNA==?= wrote on 09 sep 2008 in
microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

[please quote the poster's name on Usenet, it was "Anthony Jones"]

I can argue that what clients request of the people on their pay roll
is their business. If I wanted advice on how to deal with the client,
I would go to a more suitable site.

This is Usenet, not a "site".

You certainly can argue, but on Usenet, what you want is not necessarily
what you get.

Anthony gave you very usefull advice, which seemingly is not what you
wanted.

And even if his response were not useful,
that would be his prerogative.

On Usenet, what you want as an OP
does not give you any right to expect to get.

So please, anonimous, go search for a paid helpdesk that will be in your
employ and will serve you the [probably wrong] answers you want to receive.

 

[Dooza]

=?Utf-8?B?YW9pZmV5MTIzNA==?= wrote on 09 sep 2008 in
microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

[please quote the poster's name on Usenet, it was "Anthony Jones"]

I can argue that what clients request of the people on their pay roll
is their business. If I wanted advice on how to deal with the client,
I would go to a more suitable site.

This is Usenet, not a "site".

I get the impression he is posting from a website and does not know that
it is just a front end to a usenet newsgroup.

Dooza

 

[Old Pedant]

:

.... a bunch of irrelevant stuff ...

*********

Applause to Anthony and Evertjan. 100% agreement.

And also agreement with Anthony re "daft behavior." If you don't try to
educate your clients then _you_ aren't doing _your_ job. If a client fires
me because I gave him good advice, then I'm happy. With any luck, that
client will not too eventually go out of business. Luddites deserve their
own ends.

 

[Daniel Crichton]

aoifey1234 wrote on Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:11:02 -0700:

I presumed this was a forum to ask for ASP advice and not advice on how
to deal with the client. The fact is that before the changeover the
client could view the xml how they wanted and now they cannot. Instead
of, in my opinion, passing the book with a simple "well, maybe you
should use another editor", I feel that the better option is to come
up with a solution.

Did you even read Anthony's post fully? The first part of his reply told you
exactly what needs to be done to the XML file (add CR LF where the line
needs to be broken), and he asked you to post the ASP code so that he could
point you to exactly where that could be added. But you ignored that and
instead decided to rant about the second part, which in this case is
actually good advice - XML is not supposed to be read with a plain text
editor, it needs to be read with something that can parse the markup.

We have managed a workaround which we are intending to use, so the
client is happy.
"They _must_ be able" to view the file in wordpad as they are simply
looking at the files on a server with no other editor available to
them.

If they have Wordpad, they have Windows - which means they also have
Internet Explorer, and that can parse XML files into a much more readable
format.

Thanks for the additional advice, however I would have preferred an
actual answer to my question which unfortunately I did not get.

But you did get an answer - you just ignored it.

To use your own words......."I'm surprised by the number of times I
come across people" who waste time and resources answering a thread in
which they have provided no answer.

And again, he did provide an answer.

I am disappointed to be honest. I came to this forum to ask for ASP
advice and instead I feel that I am being criticised for trying to
keep the client happy. PLEASE!
Thanks again for the ...ahem.... advice

You should feel lucky that anyone took the time to point out what you needed
to do considering that you haven't provided a single piece of example ASP
code so that we can see how the XML is being created - without knowing that,
how can anyone tell you exactly what you should do?

 

[Phillip Windell]

You seem to be missing an important point from the beginning (and so is the
client).
The browser displays the XML the way you see it displayed because the
browser is **interpreting** the XML,..it is not simply viewing the file
contents. Notepad on the other hand is doing nothing more than viewing the
contents of the text based text file.

An XML file is *not* a special type of file,...the only thing that *makes*
it an XML file is the *content*,...not the format,...for the XML to "look"
like XML as you see it in the browser is has to be interpreted which is what
the browser is doing,...Notepad does not interpret anything.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[Phillip Windell]

I can argue that what clients request of the people on their pay roll is
their business. If I wanted advice on how to deal with the client, I would
go
to a more suitable site. I had already stated that "Unfortunately they are
not open to the idea of changing which editor they use"

Then they need to change what they are "open" to doing,...**that is** the
solution. And it is your job to get the client to understand that.

I thought that the fact that I was ASKING for a solution may have
indicated
that I was LOOKING for a solution???

There,....is........no.......solution in the "way" you want there to be a
solution.
Your solution is to educate the Client to do things the correct way,..and to
approach things in the correct way,...and to desire things in the correct
way,...so that they get the correct results.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[Old Pedant]

There,....is........no.......solution in the "way" you want there to be a
solution.
Your solution is to educate the Client to do things the correct way,..and to
approach things in the correct way,...and to desire things in the correct
way,...so that they get the correct results.

As I'm sure you are aware, I 100% agree with your second paragraph.

However...your first paragraph isn't stricly true.

If the idiotic clients want to stupidly use wordpad to view the XML *text*
(and yes, I agree, it is only text) and they WANT line breaks between tags
and indentation...well, yes, you *can* produce an XML file that is formatted
in that fashion. And, indeed, I have done so on occasion just out of a sense
of neatness. It's not hard.

But it's also true that the standard tools aren't going to do that kind of
crappy stuff for you. Why should they? They don't care about line breaks and
indentations and neither should and XML processor.

Still, it *is* possible to create a solution to his so-called "problem".
Even if it is a problem that only exists in the minds of doofi. *

***********

* doofi: Plural form of doofus.

 

[Phillip Windell]

As I'm sure you are aware, I 100% agree with your second paragraph.

However...your first paragraph isn't stricly true.

Yea, I know what you mean. I was just trying hard to make a point. I
normally haunt the networking groups or ISA server groups and I get really
frustrated by people who come up with some wierd convoluted twisted ways to
slap something together and then expect me/us to tell them how to "make it
work". Then when you explain the correct way to do they say they "have" to
do it the way they are doing it because someone "told" them too. I think a
lot of times they are just lazy and don't want to undo the previous bad work
or spend a few dollars to buy the right equipment. Anyway I don't think
there is an excuse to do something the "wrong way" just because someone told
you to,...or at least not without reasonable effort devoted to arguing in
favor of doing it the correct way. So even though I'm not a developer (but
find the group interesting to read through post's answers) I just couldn't
bring myself to pass up that post

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------