• (cs) in reply to Ben
    Ben:
    Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.

    Tee-hee

  • God (unregistered) in reply to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
    WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot:
    Ben:
    Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.

    Tee-hee

    What people don't realise is that the bunny is evil. By using XML you're ridding the world of evil bunnies. If XML were any less prevalent you would have been overrun by evil bunnies years ago.

  • ratis (unregistered) in reply to God
    God:
    WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot:
    Ben:
    Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.

    Tee-hee

    What people don't realise is that the bunny is evil. By using XML you're ridding the world of evil bunnies. If XML were any less prevalent you would have been overrun by evil bunnies years ago.
    The bunny is the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh that lives in The Cave of Caerbannog.

  • tristique (unregistered) in reply to MurphyQJames
    MurphyQJames:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that most of you have never heard of Jennifer Garner. She literally puts Irish Girl to shame.
    Ummm, no. Her transvestite donkey witch face is rivaled only by Sarah-Jessica-Parker.
    You owe me a new monitor and another cup of coffee.
  • T.D. Gonzales (unregistered) in reply to Alex Papadimoulis

    What it means when you say literally

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally

    Data Structures 101. Ha we call it CS300 something. There is no nice intro it just sucks.

    If you really want to see a fun data structure look at Fat16... Which is backward compatible with Fat12 and all other fats that came before.

  • distineo (unregistered) in reply to I'm Smart
    I'm Smart:
    I bet nobody's even mentioned the fact you can literally see the redacted text if you select it. That Jennifer Garner woman is going to be really mad and she's an actress too, so lots of money to sue your asses.
    There are hundreds of Jennifer Garner's listed in the phone book. What makes you think the one in the XML is the actress instead of one of the other ones?
  • (cs) in reply to God
    God:
    What people don't realise is that the bunny is evil. By using XML you're ridding the world of evil bunnies. If XML were any less prevalent you would have been overrun by evil bunnies years ago.

    I would be willing to be overrun by evil bunnies as long as I never had to make another change to the 2GB+ XML files at my work. What are these files used for? One service pulls a bunch of data from out database to create the "input" and transfers it (via TCP/IP on the same machine) to the next service. This service does some analysis, generates the "output", and passes the XML to the final service. The final service pulls all of the data out of XML and inserts the "output" in to the original database.

  • Synantonym (unregistered)

    It's just that literally now has two meanings: it's former meaning, and the antonym of that.

    I don't see the problem.

  • Anone (unregistered) in reply to God
    God:
    WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot:
    Ben:
    Remember, kids, every time you use XML, God puts a bunny in a blender.

    Tee-hee

    What people don't realise is that the bunny is evil. By using XML you're ridding the world of evil bunnies. If XML were any less prevalent you would have been overrun by evil bunnies years ago.

    Are there even any non-evil bunnies?

  • Christian (unregistered)

    I would crack up if it wasn't tragic. I read this article a couple days ago, and today when I started supporting a new application, realized that all the XML requests they have use pretty much the same thing:

    <q0:fileInfo xmlns:dt="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes" dt:dt="bin.base64">

  • java.util.FixIt (unregistered) in reply to frits

    Actually XML is eXtensible... A very definition of it! If you know your structures are likely to change in the future (Or just have that gut feeling that this could be done differently and probably will) Just use namespaces...

    Voila, you now have a container document that can include various internals with different namespace (Use the "any") and your validators and XLSTs and any other std. tool will work brilliantly and you can define new namespaces as you please...

    Combined with a versioning approach you can call it "my.company.account:0" and the next account:1 etc... That way you can even provide backwards compatibility without much effort, simply leave in an old xml to object lib and provide for convertion to new structure and save the new :)

  • a (unregistered)
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <record> <dbKey>9035768</dbKey> <borrower1> <first>Jennifer</first> <last>Garner</last>
    4829 Oakview Lane
    <city>Perryview</city> <state>WA</state> <ssn>209-23-6874</ssn> </borrower1> </record>
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to MurphyQJames
    MurphyQJames:
    JamesQMurphy:
    TRWTF is that most of you have never heard of Jennifer Garner. She literally puts Irish Girl to shame.
    Ummm, no. Her transvestite donkey witch face is rivaled only by Sarah-Jessica-Parker.
    That is a staggeringly offensive thing to say. I think you owe an apology to all the tranvestites, donkeys and witches.
  • shyam (unregistered)

    Is the real wtf that you can still decode the base64 encoded xml and the blacked out portions don't matter?

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <record>
      <dbKey>9035768</dbKey>
      <borrower1>
        <first>Jennifer</first>
        <last>Garner</last>
        
    4829 Oakview Lane
    <city>Perryview</city> <state>WA</state> <ssn>209-23-6874</ssn> </borrower1> </record>
  • (cs) in reply to shyam
    shyam:
    Is the real wtf that you can still decode the base64 encoded xml and the blacked out portions don't matter?
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <record>
      <dbKey>9035768</dbKey>
      <borrower1>
        <first>Jennifer</first>
        <last>Garner</last>
        
    4829 Oakview Lane
    <city>Perryview</city> <state>WA</state> <ssn>209-23-6874</ssn> </borrower1> </record>

    Finally, someone with half a brain.

    OK, maybe a third...

  • anonymous (unregistered)

    Don't be stupid. Of course data structures can change, and they sometimes do. They just have more dependencies that must changed accordingly, and sometimes that makes changing them impractical but that's a far cry from never.

Leave a comment on “Extensible XML”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article