XHTML leverages core skillsets and world-class team synergy to provide clients worldwide with robust, scalable, modern turnkey implementations of flexible, personalized, cutting-edge Internet-enabled e-business application product suite e-solution architectures that accelerate response to customer and real-world market demands and reliably adapt to evolving technology needs, seamlessly and efficiently integrating and synchronizing with their existing legacy infrastructure, enhancing the e-readiness capabilities of their e-commerce production environments across the enterprise while giving them a critical competitive advantage and taking them to the next level.
XHTML is probably the only thing XML is good for. Pretty much like HTML, only it prevents ENTERPRISEweb developers from using retarded tag soup.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 16:33
Guys, HTML 5 is coming out soon. In both XML and plain SGML flavors. So relax.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:07
>>21
How do you propose doing OpenDocument Format or XMPP without XML.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:09
>>23
Anything which is 10 times smaller then tagged text.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:10
>>19
The purpose of DTDs and Schemas is to give meaning to a set of XML elements. Without it, you can get overlapping elements that would make things ambiguous.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:11
>>24
So you're just shit-talking. Understood loud and clear. 5/10.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:13
>>24
Servers can GZIP all this XML better then your format.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 17:24
>>19
lel wot
Parsing XML has nothing to do with validating XML.
>>27
I hope you're trolling. These "tagged text" formats are fucking shit. The "XML crap inside ZIP files" is even worse, yet like all shit, it attracts developers like crazy. Now both MS Office and the freetard stuff use them, and Adobe wants to make PDF that shit too ("Mars" I think it was called).
It's funny, Excel 2007 has an optional hybrid format which uses a binary file for cell contents in order to avoid being slow as fuck. The autosave-every-10-minutes is done in binary too.
Files are made to be read by machines. If you want to have source text or interpret them, more power to you, but the final distributed stuff should be in efficient, compact binary form. Then you use GZIP *on that* (besides, just throwing GZIP at everything is retarded: XML-style garbage can benefit a lot from preprocessing before compression, improving both speed and size, but the browser people are too busy masturbating over the tag soup to notice).
XML vs binary, a point-by-point comparison:
* Size: binary wins
* Compressed size: binary wins
* Read/write speed: binary wins, by about an order of magnitude, in some cases two (good thing file parsing isn't much of a factor anymore, unless you are trying to do serious stuff)
* Human-readability: XML wins, still not optimal for reading though (just open the fucking file, for fuck's sake)
* Human-writeability: XML kind of wins, yet for complex stuff it's useless anyway (maybe for correcting a typo or moving some element or whatever, but I hope you're not thinking about editing an ODT/ODS file by hand)
* Code size and complexity: I hope you're kidding. Good thing you can use some monstrous, hideously bloated libraries to process it, otherwise XML would see no use
* Extensibility: tie. A properly designed binary format can be just as "extensible" (read: backward- and forward-compatible, for the unenterprised people) as XML. A random example is the old DOC/XLS/PPT format that served Office from version 97 to 2003 and can still be saved by 2007 (yes, you can open them in 97 even if they use newer features)
tl;dr: Enjoy your bullshit kool-aid and wanking about trivialities, your CPU-bound servers, and your bandwidth bills.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-28 19:06
Anybody notice software quality is inversely proportional to the ammount of XML used? Correlation does not imply causation, but that rule-of-thumb seems to be working pretty well so far.
This is HTML valid. That's how badgood it is.
fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 1:45
>>39
While HTML prior to HTML5 was defined as an application of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), a very flexible markup language, XHTML is an application of XML, a more restrictive subset of SGML. Because they need to be well-formed, true XHTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard XML tools—unlike HTML, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser. XHTML can be thought of as the intersection of HTML and XML in many respects, since it is a reformulation of HTML in XML. XHTML 1.0 became a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation on January 26, 2000. XHTML 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on May 31, 2001.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 2:00
true XHTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard XML tools—unlike HTML, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser.
true HTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard SGML tools—unlike HTML5, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 2:29
Something tells me that one of the people who wrote the XHTML spec knows more than you do about XHTML.
Something tells me that one of the people who wrote the IE knows more than you do about IE.
Oh fuck, you mean one of the XHTML authors is the program manager for IE, the first browser to support XHTML. And don't tell me that there are valid security concerns with the XHTML mime type. Oh shit there are, and that is one of may reasons IE doesn't support it yet. Shit someone tell the FireFail team that before they implement it an a securi... oh shit you mean that already happened to them. FUCK!
Next you will be telling me that MS co-authored the XML spec and that's why IE was the first to support XML and... OH SHIT! You mean that is true to.
Could it be that every know-nothing blogger with some fanboy faggy ax to grind isn't 100% knowledgeable or truthful in these types of discussions and they spread their ignorance and misinformation like niggers. And taking that shit at face value makes you an ignorant nigger.. OH SHIT! THAT IS TRUE TOO!
>>63
Actually that's only part true. IE has "supported" XHTML for a long time, but not any of the XHTML or XML content types, so if you serve it as text/html it "works".
And by "supported" I mean "ignored".
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 3:48
>>60
If you make one name an insult that would be a change of English vocabulary.
Clearly this hasn't happened. The name FrozenVoid is only a name, and any subjective interpretation is
just an opinion (an emotionally driven one, i might add).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 3:51
>>64 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>XHTML test</title>
</head>
<body>
<p><b/>this text should not be bold.</p>
</body>
</html>
guess what IE does. it doesn't work.
>>65
Apply Godwin's law (s/FrozenVoid/Hilter/g) to your statement and then stop.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:02
>>67
This isn't the case where Hitler is alive and posting on messageboard.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:03
>>67
Hitler is irrelevant,he is incapable of posting here
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:07
The only Godwin law application,(albeit an invalid comparision) is >>67
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:12
>>69
But I'm capable of claiming that you are of similar character. I need not know a thing about you, yet I can make such a statement while I sit here and sip on my Carmenere wine and listen to Shugo-Chara Egg!
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:15
>>71
Making capable=/= Making it valid.
Your claim has been disproved,and you even managed to induce Godwin law on yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:22
>>72
The only claims I have made are that I have the ability to call someone names, plus my beverage and music selections.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:27
>>73
You refer to post >>67 with the line "But I'm capable of claiming that you are of similar character"
thus comparing me to Hitler.
>>82
Having looked at the post, there are seven reasons why my script filtered it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:48
>>83
Would such strong categorization make alot of posts here "filtered"? i.e. false positives.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:57
Also, how is filtering out irrelevant links to pages that anyone who isn't fucking stupid could get to on their own ``amplifying'' anything? It's reducing unwanted noise.
Everyone here is already well aware of Wikipedia. If we want to look at the Wikipedia page for a subject, we can fucking well visit it on our own, with no assistance from mouth-breathing non-indenting, BBCODE-failing, shitposting, QUALITY-degradingtrolls.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 5:02
>>85
If you post questions or claims which are disproved/answered by simple wikipedia lookup it means that,
You are not aware enough or incapable of visiting it on your own.
>>105
That doesn't make any sense, bold is not used to embolden whole lines, it's used to bolden particular word/s within a line. Why would anybody do that? Single tags are cancer unless absolutely necessary like <br />.
Name:
<2009-01-29 11:51
>>107
<br>,<img> and <hr> serve functions which different then formatting the text between the tags.
>>108
Which is why they are the only kind of tags that don't need open and close tags. Don't you read anything?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 12:45
>>110
You forgot :
<link rel="next" href="url">
<base>
<meta>
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 13:47
<!DOCTYPE html><title>hax</title>my<p>anus
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:33
I know I'm replying to a retard by posting this, but whatever, this is actually an interesting thought. Wouldn't it be possible to engineer dynamic content with gopher by (ab)using type 7 entries?
That XHTML markup displays correctly in IE. You are just a faggot who thinks he knowns more than he actually does. The b tag should bot be self closing. Just because any element can be self closing in XML does not mean that all can be in XHTML and expected to display correctly in a user agent. It is in the fucking spec.
hibt, or are you really that fucking stupid. How is it fucking possible that you could not understand that 1 very easy to understand line in the spec.
C.3. Element Minimization and Empty Element Content
Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY (for example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized form.
Lets break it down for a nigtard like you:
Given an empty instance of an element: The b element the fag tried to say was correct is empty. So this b element is the given element instance.
whose content model is not EMPTY:
The content model for b elements is not EMPTY.
do not use the minimized form.
DO NOT USE THE MINIMIZED FORM ON B TAGS.
Are you too stupid to not understand the difference between a content with empty element, and the content model defined for an element according to the spec.
<b></b> is fine. <b/> is not.
Your level of stupidity and faggotry is astounding, even for /prog/.
Sorry to tell you guys this, but somebody has already made a Gopherchan!
gopher://port70.net/1chan
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 21:15
>>120
i was going to do something like that once, but couldn't figure out a good way to let people post.
i see that they couldn't either.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 21:26
>>121
Supposedly there's a Gopher+ which allows `interactive queries' which could reputedly allow posting data. I have no idea if any clients support it, though.
Gopher is good because you get just right down to the actual content instead of having to deal with much of the web 2.0 eye candy faggotry that plagues the web these days. I'd hate to see the protocol vanish one day; there's cool shit out there if you look hard enough.
Unfortunately, there is distressingly little actual content on Gopher.
It's almost poetic, if you think about it though. Strip out all the shiny stuff and there's nothing left.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-30 14:16
Unfortunately, there is distressingly little actual content on Gopher.
gopher://port70.net/1text
gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/1/fun
lots of crazy moon language that i can't read: gopher://bbs.nsysu.edu.tw/
shitty content, but it is actual content: gopher://bbs.quickfox.net/
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-30 14:22
Floodgap is pretty much the capital of Gopherspace.
>>145
I can't help it, he's such a fucking faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-31 0:36
>>118
you really are that fucking stupid. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines This appendix summarizes design guidelines for authors who wish their XHTML documents to render on existing HTML user agents.
that appendix doesn't say anything about XHTML. it's only about HTML and retarded faggots who try to parse XHTML as HTML. seriously, what kind of moron would try to parse a PNG as a GIF?
>>137
lower port numbers are better. that's why only root is allowed to bind to ports below a certain number.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-31 0:45
Gopher wins!
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-31 7:51
>>36
I raged then read the last point.
>Extensibility: tie. A properly designed binary format can be just as "extensible" (read: backward- and forward-compatible, for the unenterprised people) as XML. A random example is the old DOC/XLS/PPT format that served Office from version 97 to 2003 and can still be saved by 2007 (yes, you can open them in 97 even if they use newer features)
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-01 1:36
What the shit is gopher? The other internet?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-01 1:44
>>150
thats right, there is another internet, but can only have access to it if you pay fairX the haxxor enough;)
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-01 1:44
I don't think you understand what the internet is.
>>159
at least they're not all owned by neo-nazis like barry soetoro.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-02 16:45
>>159
Gopher is not seen as a threat, so "wingnuts" as you put it, feel it is an uncensored, virginal, cancer-free part of the Internet.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-02 17:52
So if there XHTML with the XML shit coming, how about an new accompanying enterprise XHTTP protocol with RFC? HTTP 1.1 could use some refreshment, doesn't it?
My proposal with an example is as follows: