What is Digg?35 Comments
- picklematrix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Web Services Policy Framework defines a base set of constructs that can be used and extended by other Web services specifications to describe a broad range of service requirements and capabilities."
WHAT? - mikeylopez, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7JSON FTW!
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Something perhaps more informative for the layperson or professional who doesn't have time to read the raw spec:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070904/20070904005324.html?.v=1 - tybris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Ultra boring W3C specifications on the front page?
- xaxxon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10I already hate XML for use in just about everything.. but this just makes me hate it even more. Scroll down past half way and look at some of the examples. It's a ***** mess. Usually protocols are either easily human readable or easily computer parseable. This steaming pile of ***** is neither.
--I tried to paste some, but it can't because of too many angle brackets.. - bendavies, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6All you whingers baning on about XML: don't worry, these types of XML standards are for use by the big boys. Once we have all this sorted, doubtless there be some high level markup with about 5 elements that makes it easy for you to point and click your way to "programming" that kick ass social networking thing you've been wibbling on about.
If you dont understand why XML is, then you don't understand the purpose of XML. - tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4XML is like violence, if it doesn't solve the problem you're not using enough.
- bennyfreshness, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5lamer... please kill yourself, thank you
- Uberpussy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes we do and it is a pain in the ass but when everyone else is using it your forced into a corner. You would not believe the huge amounts of wasted band width I see a month to sending data via XML compared to the old CSV or the like data transfers but no one seems to care. They only want to talk XML.
- Madstar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3XML is designed to unify communication between servers and for that purpose it work very well. 10 years ago there was n different languages (n >50) for communication. That was dirty. I'm not a fan of XML but is is the better alternative and and it is approved in the industry.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...although some would claim that XML is just LISP with a different syntax.
- sepi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well, usually there are configuration tools and code generators to do all this xml ***** for you. But I do agree that the 'human readable' part of XML is getting lost due to the verbosity
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not that bad, it's mainly that it's combining things from different namespaces, all explicitly named... looks nastier because of that. Some good automatic color coding could do wonders.
New popular fix-it-up show: "Coder's Eye for the Layperson Guy"
"Your thread-count is what? That's way too low for a quad-core system!" - bioskope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yea this psudeo web developer just had an ahhhhhh
- bioskope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1damnit it ate up my orgasm tag
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Chuck Norris can kill anyone by using his <kick type='roundhouse'/>
- SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When I think of extending web services, I think of mashups... pretty simple. I'm guessing this policy framework is for really heavy enterprise-level stuff? Do people really use SOAP & the like to transfer data securely in an enterprise-level web service?
- digsig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wonder if anyone bashing web services in the previous posts has ever developed a serious web application? There's a reason SOAP has triumphed over previous ways for communication between web apps.
- sepi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I feel your pain. it's atrocious to blast several kilobytes of XML over the wire just to retrieve an integer :)
- raynevandunem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1OK, who or what can really benefit from XML?
Servers. It's extremely useful on those, especially XSL.
But on desktops? No, not yet.
They haven't fully fleshed out the possibilities of the markup language as of yet; there's a debate on whether XAML is a "declarative" user interface markup language or an "application markup language".
I think the W3C should just come out and state the obvious: that anything that they've been standardizing upon since XML came out has only been made to work best and most on the web server, and rarely be useful on the desktop computer.
Then any further standardization on an extensible user interface markup language of the desktop user interface should be left to a separate standards body, with the name of "Desktop Computing Interface Consortium" or something. They can come out with XUIML 1.0, which won't be too verbose and will be human-readable for coders. - HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You must get tons of snatch.
- nephilimx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Bring on the new Japanese Created "Internet"
- GhostFreeman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1and thus the W3C continues its mission to make the life of designers, programmers, and webmasters as miserable as possible.
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2What a sad life...
- p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1-1
- ShinGouki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+01. if u dont want to hear a answer or are not interested: dont ask
2. i try for u to answer: Web Services "should" solve complexe problems.
The word "complex" evolvs here into something that u cannot imagine.
So: If u have 1 complex thing and another complex thing how do u make them work together?
( thats how webservices initially should work)
u write an SPECIFICATION so that these BOTH Serves may interact in a way u want it to.
So as i would understand this policy thing it defines a langure to define Specifications for webservices to interact.
I hope u understand, if not i tried :D
8although i'm not too sure if I did understand correctly) - ZogDog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're life was changed? Go freakin watch the news or something, that'll blow your mind
- vwvan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2XML is the dirtiest grammar ever foisted on the programming public.
It isn't LALR(1) or even LALR(k)
It isn't expression based.
It doesn't use mathematically clear delimiters.
It isn't human readable.
It isn't easy to parse, every inner expression potentially forks another instance of the parser.
It's an extension of html, which was designed by physicists, not computer scientists.
It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes my eyes bug out in pain.
If aliens ever discover XML, they should destroy the planet without further consideration.
What a bedazzeling piece of informational sewage has been created.
Pure industrial sludge and toxic waste has nothing on XML for the damage to the nervous system.
Second only to DOS, backslash, dll hell, and Unix device drivers.
If you want to kill any living thing, just show it XML and watch it shrivel up and die.
What is beauty? Java parsing XML. What a sick mess of sticky tape and nonsense security.
What happened to yacc, to bison, to infix, postfix, and prefix grammars.
What happened to sane lexical analysis.
What happened to Lisp.
Buried, dead under a pile of XML. I have to go puke now. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Yes my are life has changed such as the Iraq.
- Seantacular, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I thought this was talking about wc3.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0Thanks I'll take your advice.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -24/+1This is very interesting news!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -27/+1This was such a great news article that changed my life.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -27/+1Oops, I accidentally made two comments. Please don't digg me down. :(
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is