Talk:XML
{{talkheader}}{{WikiProject Internet|class=B|importance=High}}
%28 replaces ascii '(' ??
What do they call this ascii replacement scheema you see it often in xml pages and url links?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (Special:Contributions/75.69.135.171|75.69.135.171) ((User talk:75.69.135.171|talk)) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC) see:
weblink DRead ((User talk:Derekread|talk)) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Advantages/Disadvantages
The Advantages/Disadvantages in the "Critique" section could be organized better, I believe. Instead of having separate "advantages" and "disadvantages" sections, I think it would be better if the advantages and disadvantages were interleaved so that related points could be together. For example, there are a couple of pros and cons related to it being text-based. There are also a couple of pros and cons related to the data model.Another problem with that section is that an advantage/disadvantage needs a point of reference. For example, "it is text-based" is not an advantage over other text-based formats. Each pro/con should be something like "it is XXX, while formats like X, Y, and Z are not".
The Advantage/Disadvantage section is segmented the way it is because all alternate attempts at structure have proven entirely inappropriate. For example, the previous formatting of this section consisted of entirely unreferenced and self-contradictory "back and forth" with one sentence by a proponent, quickly followed by a sentence tacked on later by an opponent, subsequently followed by a cutting retort from yet another proponent -- each person adding in content without regard to the merits of the "opposing view" ... and without regard to whether their points had already been made by someone else already.
The result was a mish-mash of contradictory and irrelevant Non sequitur that was simply unreadable -- and almost all of it was unsupported by cites. The current section represents a compromise to lift the article out of that unmaintainable morass.
dr.ef.tymac ((User talk:Dreftymac|talk)) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Populating an xml database
I have seen several basic XML tutorials and they talk about creating an XML database by typing lines such as:
etc. etc That's understood. But,what if I have a comma or tab separated text file of 1000's of names? Surely I do not have to write:
1000's of times?So how do I import the data from a text file?????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokerscouse ((User talk:Pokerscouse|talk) • (Special:Contributions/Pokerscouse|contribs)) 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
You write some code that loops through the lines of data in your
CSV file, and outputs the correct XML for each item. There would be a neat way to do this in just about any current programming or scripting language. Maybe, if you're less technical, you could import it into a spreadsheet, then export the spreadsheet as something like HTML, but you'd have little real control over the XML element names etc. --
Nigelj 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone answer this re xml?
I am studying XML. I find that some of the commands in the tutorial I am using, do not produce brower display results that the author says they should, particularly when the @ symbol is used. I only have IE 5.5 and cannot upgrade to 6.0 because that is not possible without an internet connection, which I do not have in my dingy flat. Is I.E. 5.5 the cause?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokerscouse ((User talk:Pokerscouse|talk) • (Special:Contributions/Pokerscouse|contribs)) 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC).: This talk page is here to discuss improvements to the article on XML. It is not a place to get help or assistance on usage of XML, and I suggest you look for one of the many forums, having XML/Web technologies as topics, available on the net in order to seek answers to your questions.
Jerazol 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Empty elements in XHTML
I removed the following line from section
XML#Empty elements:
Note that they may, however, be treated differently if they were examples from XHTML that was intended for processing by various current and historical web browsers.
The above sentence flasely suggests XHTML treats
differently than
. It's true that historical browsers will choke on the abbreviated form, but so what? Old browsers choke on CDATA sections as well. —
Ryan 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this is true for "modern" browsers like Firefox and IE 6 as well. For instance, the
