• sd (unregistered) in reply to Ralph Wight
    Ralph Wight:
    Why shouldn't everyone make up their own version of XML? It worked fine for HTML.

    Actually SGML came first, then HTML and later XML

  • Stephen (unregistered)

    I'd take them to court for loss of service, xml is a standard - their service doesn't work with xml.. and no we cant change it.. OUR api doesn't let us.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to Keith
    Keith:
    I now no why their is know way to no that there are know intelligent programmers working four you're vendor until its to late.

    Does you're head hurt?

    Your wrong, they're are weigh two many good programmers their. They maid they're vary own version of XML. Its weigh better.

  • moo (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    Well, your spelling sure made my head hurt.

  • yomamma (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that no one has heard of Canonical XML

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_XML

  • The_Assimilator (unregistered)

    Weee, another incompetent development company that decided that their home-grown XML parser is better than the standardised parsers built into nearly any decent programming language.

    I just wish XML WTFs would stop getting posted to TDWTF; they aren't really WTFs anymore because every second IT company you come across manages to screw up XML in one way or another.

    sigh

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    tht sntnc ws hrdr t rd thn ths sntncs wth th vwls rmvd

  • OBloodyhell (unregistered) in reply to JD
    JD:
    You see, this is exactly why we have standards - so idiot vendors can break them and make our lives ten times harder.

    Literally ancient computer quote:

    "[Computer] Chip makers all think that standards are great... Everyone should have one."

    • George Morrow -
  • Salteh (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    I no what you mean, noticed it too :(

  • tristan (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    you made my legs twitch

  • look around you (unregistered)

    THEY'RE THERE IN THEIR ROOM.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    That was the most difficult thing to read, ever. MY head hurts!

    What is it with companies playing at johnny half-a-job when it comes to customer requirements...

  • Someone's shadow (unregistered) in reply to Me
    Just writing <script src="..." /> is invalid.

    It is not. As long as you do it right and use application/xhtml+xml mime type (i.e. XML), and not text/html which is NOT XML in any way.

  • drobnox (unregistered) in reply to sig
    Turns out, the tag order was different in our specification so they were expecting this:

    <orderid>12345</orderid>

    <lname>Doe</lname>

    <fname>John</fname>

    Thinking about what the XML parser must look like on their side scares me ...

    Schema anyone? They could be using a standards-compliant parser with a schema that features a sequence element, instead of a choice.

  • RiF (unregistered) in reply to drobnox
    drobnox:
    Turns out, the tag order was different in our specification so they were expecting this:

    <orderid>12345</orderid>

    <lname>Doe</lname>

    <fname>John</fname>

    Thinking about what the XML parser must look like on their side scares me ...

    Schema anyone? They could be using a standards-compliant parser with a schema that features a sequence element, instead of a choice.

    Indeed, but more accurately they've used xs:sequence rather than xs:all. The existence of multiple elements within the context leads me to suspect that xs:choice was never in the running ;-)

  • Joseph (unregistered) in reply to Keith

    It certainly does after trying to parse your sentence there.

  • Joseph (unregistered) in reply to Keith
    Keith:
    I now no why their is know way to no that there are know intelligent programmers working four you're vendor until its to late.

    Does you're head hurt?

    It certainly does after trying to parse your sentence there.

    (whoops, forgot to quote the first time)

  • Grammar Nazi (unregistered) in reply to Keith
    Keith:
    I now know why there is no way to know that there aren't any intelligent programmers working for your vendor until it's too late.

    Does you're head hurt?

  • Spudd86 (unregistered) in reply to TopCod3r

    Err.. a non-validating parser (ie no schema or DTD, still requires well-formedness) should be very fast if it's tuned (witch the one that comes with your programming language almost certainly is). Sure you could write your own but even touching generic well written and optimized non-validating XML parser is HARD, and yours will have more bugs. Walking the DOM tree is not hard...

    That sort of reasoning is why stuff like this WTF happen.

  • Ior (unregistered) in reply to TopCod3r

    What's the point in having standard if it doesn't apply to every case?

    And to being able to write homebrewn XML processing and thinking it's the preferred way to do it, get two ore more different vendor's applications with custom XML processing and get them to interact with each other. Whose implementation is to blame WHEN you can't get it to work.

Leave a comment on “The Substandard Standard”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article