• Foosball Girl In My Dreams (cs)

    </>*

    *Comment_Not_Found

  • batasrki (cs)

    Oh yes, XML's tag name limitations are well known. Damn Tim Bray and his invention. :-)

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to batasrki

    Now now, maybe the intention was to say that he (in the tag) had nothing worth saying - a null tag

  • David (unregistered)
    in order to meet the well known XML limitation of only allowing 5 characters per tag name.

    I hope you're bullshiting me right? It must be, it isn't, isn't it? Please tell me it isn't, please? Otherwise all of my XML of the last X years has been invalid... Nah, you must be bullshitting me, aren't you? Seriously, please tell me this is bullshit.

  • pcooper (cs)

    I think constructions like that may be legal in some applications of SGML. But not in XML.

    I've always been amused that <_/> is a legal XML document, though.

  • FDF (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    in order to meet the well known XML limitation of only allowing 5 characters per tag name.

    I hope you're bullshiting me right? It must be, it isn't, isn't it? Please tell me it isn't, please? Otherwise all of my XML of the last X years has been invalid... Nah, you must be bullshitting me, aren't you? Seriously, please tell me this is bullshit.

    Of course he's not bullshitting you

  • cynic (unregistered)

    Imagine if namespaces were used to bridge the "limitation"

    <dicti:onary> <defin:ition> </defin:ition> </dicti:onary>

  • DaveK (cs) in reply to David
    David:
    in order to meet the well known XML limitation of only allowing 5 characters per tag name.

    I hope you're bullshiting me right? It must be, it isn't, isn't it? Please tell me it isn't, please? Otherwise all of my XML of the last X years has been invalid... Nah, you must be bullshitting me, aren't you? Seriously, please tell me this is bullshit.

    YHBT, fairly comprehensively!

  • ObiWayneKenobi (cs)

    WTF? I've seen plenty of XML that use more than 5 characters in tags. Are you telling me this isn't really valid XML, despite conforming to the W3C standards for XML?

  • Talchas (cs) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi

    The five letters thing was sarcasm...

  • AndyBee (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi

    good grief.

    In future perhaps we should have <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags?

  • Sunstorm (cs) in reply to AndyBee
    AndyBee:
    good grief.

    In future perhaps we should have <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags?

    <srcsm></srcsm>, get it right.

  • Darkstar (unregistered) in reply to Talchas
    Talchas:
    The five letters thing was sarcasm...

    <sarcasm>NOW you tell me, it has taken me hours to go through all our XML documents and redo the tags - not to mention building up a cross reference XML document indicating what the tags were and are now.</sarcasm>

  • Grant (unregistered)

    And even without the <sarcasm /> tags, it's probably worth noting that the XML specs are available for free on the iterweb. The interweb is a neat little tool that really helps software developers out. If you haven't checked it out yet, give it a try.

  • Mean Mr. Mustard (unregistered)

    Actually, all English communication is supposed to be words of five characters or less. About the only legal words on the Internet are those CAPTCHA thingies.

  • An apprentice (unregistered) in reply to Grant
    Grant:
    And even without the <sarcasm /> tags, it's probably worth noting that the XML specs are available for free on the iterweb. The interweb is a neat little tool that really helps software developers out. If you haven't checked it out yet, give it a try.

    Excuse me, but how exactly can a series of tubes help in software development?

  • Andy Goth (unregistered)

    XML is overused and underused at the same time. I see it used for things that would have been handled better by traditional formats or custom formats. But then I also see ugly custom "I can't believe it's not XML!" formats used where XML would have done the trick nicely. I suspect the decision to use XML is primarily driven by marketing and management, rarely by developers who might actually have a clue about what's appropriate.

    Also, I once saw XML used to contain HTML. A literal ampersand had to be written out thusly: &amp; . In context it looked like this: <mydata>Hello &lt;b&gt;Alex &amp;amp; Jake!&lt;/b&gt;</mydata> . Wow.

  • brazzy (cs) in reply to Andy Goth
    Andy Goth:
    XML is overused and underused at the same time. I see it used for things that would have been handled better by traditional formats or custom formats. But then I also see ugly custom "I can't believe it's not XML!" formats used where XML would have done the trick nicely. I suspect the decision to use XML is primarily driven by marketing and management, rarely by developers who might actually have a clue about what's appropriate.
    You forgot "badly used". I currently work on a large banking app that uses XML to communicate with a certain backend system - perfectly legitimate use of XML. Unfortunately, the backend system provider's understanding of XML is adequately summarized by this verbatim quote:

    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."

  • Martin (unregistered)

    All of the XHTML is bad then! was illegal for so long!

  • FredSaw (cs) in reply to Sunstorm
    Sunstorm:
    AndyBee:
    good grief.

    In future perhaps we should have <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags?

    <srcsm></srcsm>, get it right.
    How about... <sar:chasm>Signifying the expanse between what was said and what was understood</sar:chasm>

  • gabba (unregistered)

    I like how the dump was "XML-like". No doubt the programmer thought improving on XML was way better than conforming to the standard.

  • FredSaw (cs) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."
    Terms like "justifiable homicide" spring to mind.
  • Bosshog (unregistered) in reply to Sunstorm
    Sunstorm:
    AndyBee:
    good grief.

    In future perhaps we should have <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags?

    <srcsm></srcsm>, get it right.

    Brillant! :D

  • d3matt (cs) in reply to Martin
    Martin:
    All of the XHTML is bad then! was illegal for so long!
    Wrong. The tag is . The href is an attribute of . Also, href is less five characters as well so it is perfectly fine :)
  • John Cowan (unregistered) in reply to pcooper

    Quite so. In full SGML, "</> means "End the current element", and "<>" means "Repeat the most recent start-tag". So "

    foo</><>bar</>" was short for "

    foo

    bar

    ".

    It's also true that the default maximum length for tags is 8 characters (not 5), though implementations could and did extend that.

  • Charlie (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    in order to meet the well known XML limitation of only allowing 5 characters per tag name.

    I hope you're bullshiting me right? It must be, it isn't, isn't it? Please tell me it isn't, please? Otherwise all of my XML of the last X years has been invalid... Nah, you must be bullshitting me, aren't you? Seriously, please tell me this is bullshit.

    You must be new here. This is how Alex et. al. do humor.

  • LoL (unregistered)

    Is it just me or is the real WTF some of these comments?

  • Soul-Grinding Madness Looms (unregistered) in reply to John Cowan
    John Cowan:
    Quite so. In full SGML, " means "End the current element", and "<>" means "Repeat the most recent start-tag". So "

    foo<>bar" was short for "

    foo

    bar

    ".
    Just one of many, many SGML WTFs, which seems to be designed to frustrate automatic processing as much as possible. Why they ever picked this to base HTML on... XML is basically SGML after de-WTF-ification. Not that XML is completely free of brain damage itself, mind you, but SGML is from the days where people thought that ADD A TO B GIVING C would be nice to have as a statement in a programming language.
  • NiceWTF (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    in order to meet the well known XML limitation of only allowing 5 characters per tag name.

    I hope you're bullshiting me right?

    I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

  • Hmmmm... (unregistered)
    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."

    Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You have normative (the spreadsheets) and descriptive (the schemas). If there is a inconsistency between the two, you hold up the defined "correct" copy as the standard and use that to fix the schemas...

  • Synonymous Awkward (unregistered) in reply to Soul-Grinding Madness Looms
    Soul-Grinding Madness Looms:
    John Cowan:
    Quite so. In full SGML, " means "End the current element", and "<>" means "Repeat the most recent start-tag".
    Just one of many, many SGML WTFs, which seems to be designed to frustrate automatic processing as much as possible.
    Actually, if were enforced as the only way to end a tag, it'd make parsing a bit faster since well-formed-ness checking is so much simpler. Of course, you lose the sanity-checking provided by the repeated tag-name. And you've basically just reinvented S-exps.

    But oh well. :-)

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to Soul-Grinding Madness Looms
    Soul-Grinding Madness Looms:
    ... SGML is from the days where people thought that ADD A TO B GIVING C would be nice to have as a statement in a programming language.
    I'm from those days, and I worked on a project where management thought it would be "cool" to use this new-fangled SGML (to represent component parts of documents that had been scanned in so they could be electronically updated instead of completely retyped; at the time, it was an improvement over what we had available). Of course, this was in the days where we had to hand-crank the computer to get it to do anything...
  • FredSaw (cs) in reply to Hmmmm...
    Hmmmm...:
    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."

    Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You have normative (the spreadsheets) and descriptive (the schemas). If there is a inconsistency between the two, you hold up the defined "correct" copy as the standard and use that to fix the schemas...

    That makes sense. So, whenever a client wants to connect with a web or WCF service, the service can put the excel spreadsheet on a wooden table, take a polaroid of it, and fax that over to the client to establish the contract.

  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."
    I can't wait until they migrate to Office 2007 with their MSOOXML Excel sheet, the infinite recursion should literally make people explode.
  • Fish Basket Gordo (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw
    FredSaw:
    Sunstorm:
    AndyBee:
    good grief.

    In future perhaps we should have <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags?

    <srcsm></srcsm>, get it right.
    How about... <sar:chasm>Signifying the expanse between what was said and what was understood</sar:chasm>

    What great wit. I didn't know Oscar Wilde had the Internet in the hereafter. (I am purposely leaving off any tags to indicate my tone.)

  • jayh (unregistered) in reply to FredSaw

    homocide:

    accidental justifiable laudable

  • Daniel15 (cs) in reply to An apprentice
    An apprentice:
    Grant:
    And even without the <sarcasm /> tags, it's probably worth noting that the XML specs are available for free on the iterweb. The interweb is a neat little tool that really helps software developers out. If you haven't checked it out yet, give it a try.

    Excuse me, but how exactly can a series of tubes help in software development?

    On the other hand... A large truck, now that would be useful. :)

  • Darien H (unregistered) in reply to Andy Goth
    Andy Goth:
    Also, I once saw XML used to contain HTML. A literal ampersand had to be written out thusly: &amp; . In context it looked like this: <mydata>Hello &lt;b&gt;Alex &amp;amp; Jake!&lt;/b&gt;</mydata> . Wow.

    There was this MLS service which abruptly cut off the ability to downloads SQL dumps for a client and then said everyone had to use their badly-documented SOAP service and a demo/test site which would inexplicably fail every other invocation.

    The XML specification for my query simply would not work when I put it into the soap body.

    Then I found out that it wanted my XML in <![CDATA[ tags...

  • brazzy (cs) in reply to Hmmmm...
    Hmmmm...:
    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."

    Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You have normative (the spreadsheets) and descriptive (the schemas). If there is a inconsistency between the two, you hold up the defined "correct" copy as the standard and use that to fix the schemas...

    You've never used non-trivial XML communication, have you? XML schemas are designed and perfectly fit to provide a formal normative description of an XML format. Using Excel sheets means you throw away all formal regidity and introduce endless possibilities for inconsistence, vagueness and openness to interpretation that would simply not exist if you used a schema.

    Using Excel sheets instead of a schema to specify an XML format is like being faced with the task of putting a nail into a wall and deliberately choosing an empty bottle instead of a (prefectly available) hammer as a tool.

  • Desperate for True WTFs (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    Andy Goth:
    XML is overused and underused at the same time. I see it used for things that would have been handled better by traditional formats or custom formats. But then I also see ugly custom "I can't believe it's not XML!" formats used where XML would have done the trick nicely. I suspect the decision to use XML is primarily driven by marketing and management, rarely by developers who might actually have a clue about what's appropriate.
    You forgot "badly used". I currently work on a large banking app that uses XML to communicate with a certain backend system - perfectly legitimate use of XML. Unfortunately, the backend system provider's understanding of XML is adequately summarized by this verbatim quote:

    "The schemas are just considered documentation and are not binding. The actual binding specification of the communication format are these Excel sheets."

    And this is why I continue to read Daily WTF. Even when the owners of the site can't manage to post a real WTF for weeks on end, occasionally, a user comment strikes WTF gold!

  • Edward Royce (unregistered)

    Hmmmm.

    <spoon></spoon>

  • Nonymous (unregistered) in reply to Andy Goth
    Andy Goth:
    XML is overused and underused at the same time. I see it used for things that would have been handled better by traditional formats or custom formats. But then I also see ugly custom "I can't believe it's not XML!" formats used where XML would have done the trick nicely. I suspect the decision to use XML is primarily driven by marketing and management, rarely by developers who might actually have a clue about what's appropriate.

    Also, I once saw XML used to contain HTML. A literal ampersand had to be written out thusly: &amp; . In context it looked like this: <mydata>Hello &lt;b&gt;Alex &amp;amp; Jake!&lt;/b&gt;</mydata> . Wow.

    Or they could just use a CDATA block...

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    I hope you're bullshiting me right?

    Hi David,

    the irony meter manufacturer just called. Your device is malfunctioning. Please take it to the nearest service station ASAP.

  • AdT (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    Using Excel sheets means you throw away all formal regidity and introduce endless possibilities for inconsistence, vagueness and openness to interpretation that would simply not exist if you used a schema.

    Not to mention that there aren't too many tools that can automatically check the validity of an XML document using an Excel spreadsheet "schema".

  • G Money (unregistered) in reply to Grant
    Grant:
    And even without the <sarcasm /> tags, it's probably worth noting that the XML specs are available for free on the iterweb. The interweb is a neat little tool that really helps software developers out. If you haven't checked it out yet, give it a try.

    I'll wait until it's available on computers.

  • phaedrus (cs) in reply to LoL
    LoL:
    Is it just me or is the real WTF some of these comments?

    You must also be new here. TRWTF(tm) is always the comments. That's why you read them.

  • Pablo (unregistered) in reply to NiceWTF

    The guy hoped it was a joke, and begged for confirmation.His sarcasm detector was fine.

    His hope that anything in IT, anywhere, ever, is even remotely sane, is right on the edge. It's okay David. You don't have to break down yet.

  • gasman (cs) in reply to Nonymous
    Nonymous:
    Andy Goth:
    Also, I once saw XML used to contain HTML. A literal ampersand had to be written out thusly: &amp; . In context it looked like this: <mydata>Hello &lt;b&gt;Alex &amp;amp; Jake!&lt;/b&gt;</mydata> . Wow.

    Or they could just use a CDATA block...

    ...and turn an ugly-but-working data format into one that breaks as soon as your user input contains the characters ]]>.

  • Zygo (unregistered) in reply to Soul-Grinding Madness Looms
    Soul-Grinding Madness Looms:
    Just one of many, many SGML WTFs, which seems to be designed to frustrate automatic processing as much as possible. Why they ever picked this to base HTML on...

    Because the available alternatives at the time were SGML, ASN.1, Gopher's hypertext format, or something from Microsoft.

    If the timing had played out a little differently, web browsers would have shipped with BSD and web pages would probably end up written in m4 or something. <shiver><p> </shiver>

  • iMalc (unregistered)

    Of course we all know it was supposed to be: <>There is no spoon</>

Leave a comment on “XML Kōan from the Fourth Dimension”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article