On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@g...> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@g...>
>> > So why are you using XML again?
>>
>> This is a general question: are null-terminated strings the right
>> representation for transmitting binary blobs?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>
> Your question nails it in an unintended way. I was clearly talking about
> text. You are talking about null-terminated strings and BLOBs. There is a
> very big and important difference.

I'm talking about type errors of which both this SOAP example and my
example are instances.

> And no, I do not believe that text technologies are right for transmitting
> either null-terminated strings or BLOBs. Why not? Because they're not
> designed for it. You can start learning how so by trying to put a
> null-terminated string into XML.

Perhaps using text to transmit the concept of "null" is also ill-advised...

>> If I decided to use null-terminated strings to transmit a binary blob,
>> would it be a "C WTF"?
>
>
> Of course not, because C is designed for that.

And XML is designed for nodes.

The data model designer did not use a
<null> element or take the absence of an element to be a null value,
instead they chose to overload the meaning of a piece of plain text.

> From the "null terminated strings" bit and this one, I can tell your
> viewpoint on this is very programmer-literal, and so we're on very different
> worlds in taking lessons from that situation.

I think programmers should design data formats for programs to read
and write, yes. I'm not sure what else you feel you can glean of my
viewpoint. What else do you think I think?

> So the answer is no that's
> not what I'm saying, but Ive already said what I'm saying.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding. You appear to be saying that this
SOAP difficulty is a classic "XML WTF" that is attributable to being
too concerned with typing at the expense of text. Could you perhaps
lay out a series of inferences that lead you to this conclusion?

I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.