Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 47564
interpreted = N
texte = A couple of years ago when I started in WebDNA, I started with the XML syntax. I've been a programmer for 20 years and have written in a lot of different languages, but I had a very hard time making things work. Some just wouldn't. I ended up having to put segments in classic syntax (there is a way to use [INTERPRET] to point to the other style, although it doesn't seem to be in the command reference and I've forgotten exactly what). Finally I got to some cookie code that would not work no matter what I did, buckled down and changed my whole store over to classic syntax, and haven't looked back. My impression at that time was that the XML syntax was extremely buggy. I don't know if it's been debugged since that time.VelmaAt 01:17 PM 2/7/2003, you wrote:>Hi All,>> After being on this list for only a short time, it seems that most > people use the old style syntax and not the new XML style syntax. What > is the reason for this? Is one better than the other or just more popular?>> I also get the impression that some people don't even like the new style:>>Code on one line and conversion to ::shudder:: XML syntax necessary. : )>> The documentation is mostly written in the old style, with only a small > section devoted to the new. Also, StoreBuilder uses the old style, while > the TeaRoom is coded in the new, so apparently you can't use both.>> I'm trying to convert (unsuccessfully so far) the TeaRoom for our > store, but since most everything is written for the old, am I going > against the flow by doing this? I realize that they are very similar, > but remember, I'm new to this so _any_ wasted time just sets me back that > much further.>>Thanks to all,>Marc>>*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*>Superior Shelving Systems>>http://www.SuperiorShelving.com>>The Storage Shelving Specialists>Since 1984>*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*>>>------------------------------------------------------------->This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >>Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/----------------------------------------Velma KahnGlory Day Software Company200 Tanager Ln NW, Floyd, Virginia 24091, U.S.A.phone: 540-745-6469 * fax: 651-321-4884email: vkahn@glorydaysoftware.comhttp://www.glorydaysoftware.comhttp://www.communitymade.comhttp://www.floydcrafts.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Velma Kahn 2003)
Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Alex McCombie 2003)
Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Donovan 2003)
Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax (Rob Marquardt 2003)
Old Style vs XML Syntax (Sales 2003)

A couple of years ago when I started in WebDNA, I started with the XML syntax. I've been a programmer for 20 years and have written in a lot of different languages, but I had a very hard time making things work. Some just wouldn't. I ended up having to put segments in classic syntax (there is a way to use [interpret] to point to the other style, although it doesn't seem to be in the command reference and I've forgotten exactly what). Finally I got to some cookie code that would not work no matter what I did, buckled down and changed my whole store over to classic syntax, and haven't looked back. My impression at that time was that the XML syntax was extremely buggy. I don't know if it's been debugged since that time.VelmaAt 01:17 PM 2/7/2003, you wrote:>Hi All,>> After being on this list for only a short time, it seems that most > people use the old style syntax and not the new XML style syntax. What > is the reason for this? Is one better than the other or just more popular?>> I also get the impression that some people don't even like the new style:>>Code on one line and conversion to ::shudder:: XML syntax necessary. : )>> The documentation is mostly written in the old style, with only a small > section devoted to the new. Also, StoreBuilder uses the old style, while > the TeaRoom is coded in the new, so apparently you can't use both.>> I'm trying to convert (unsuccessfully so far) the TeaRoom for our > store, but since most everything is written for the old, am I going > against the flow by doing this? I realize that they are very similar, > but remember, I'm new to this so _any_ wasted time just sets me back that > much further.>>Thanks to all,>Marc>>*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*>Superior Shelving Systems>>http://www.SuperiorShelving.com>>The Storage Shelving Specialists>Since 1984>*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*>>>------------------------------------------------------------->This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >>Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/----------------------------------------Velma KahnGlory Day Software Company200 Tanager Ln NW, Floyd, Virginia 24091, U.S.A.phone: 540-745-6469 * fax: 651-321-4884email: vkahn@glorydaysoftware.comhttp://www.glorydaysoftware.comhttp://www.communitymade.comhttp://www.floydcrafts.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Velma Kahn

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: Old Style vs XML Syntax

2003

Top Articles:

Related Readings: