|
This is pretty simple stuff. The w3c schools[^] may be a good way to start.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
FAIL![^]
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a suggestion: While you learn XML, consider learning JSON also.
|
|
|
|
|
Or forget both and just learn PostScript.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one good book but only if you have time to spend on xslt. For not complex need w3schools is pretty useful
Clickety
And don't forget if you ever have problems, questions or something else, ask in the appropriate forum / place here in CP 
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you managed to learn C# and T-SQL, the most is done.
- XML is only about taking care on how to write properly an XML document and knowing little bunch of terms (namespace, entity, processing instruction, element, attribute, CDATA). Best reference (you will probably never need it more than once) is http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/[^]
- XSLT (and XPath) is more challenging. It's a bit like learning T-SQL: both are functional languages, both have little grammar and both take a lot of practice to master. Here again, IMHO the best reference is still MSDN : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256069(v=vs.110).aspx[^]
- XSD is about learning a standard for schema definition (not much more than knowing your web.config elements). A quick glance at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256235(v=vs.110).aspx[^] will give an idea. Here again, Visual Studio is capable of doing the hard work for you, translating an entire dataset to his respective Xsd Schema. Schema used for XML document validation purposes require usually a little fine tuning.
- Web services are little more than a web page that returns a standardized XML instead of an HTML, and a corresponding client to interpret it. Visual Studio will handle most of the Object to XML serialization and deserialization for you and part of the dirty work (wsdl, interfaces). Real troubles start when mixing WebServices from different frameworks (.Net vs Java, for example).
I hope I didn't offend anyone with this simplification, but very often, big sounding words don't necessarily hide very complex concepts.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object
|
|
|
|
|
thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
I second the recommendation to read the XML spec, but would also add that you need to read the Namespaces spec as well because it is an addition to the core standard that you almost always need, and while conceptually very simple, most people struggle to really understand how it works. If you want a good book,
XML in a Nutshell, Third Edition[^] from O'Reilly is pretty good.
XML Schema looks relatively simple, but the data model and semantics behind it are horrendously complex. In fact the technical lead of the group that developed the XML spec, as well as authored most of the XSLT/XPath 1.0 spec James Clark[^]) left the W3C over his objections to the complexity of XML Schema and how that complexity infected all the subsequent XML related specs. Fortunately, you usually don't really need to understand it because the tools take care of it for you. I think the XML in a Nutshell book covers this topic as well as you would need. When I have to author a schema by hand I usually use RELAX NG[^] Compact Syntax instead and use a tool to convert it to XSD.
If you only need XSLT/XPath 1.0, I would also recommend reading the specs - they are short and extremely well written. 2.0 is a completely different story - horrendously complex, primarily because it has to support XML Schema. Adoption of 2.0 is still pretty low so you may not need to know it, but if you do, I'd recommend XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Programmer's Reference [^] by Michael Kay who was one of primary editors of those specs.
|
|
|
|
|
ssineriz wrote: If you managed to learn C# and T-SQL, the most is done.
I wouldn't say that.
XML is relatively easy if you need do nothing more than populate business data AND you have an existing model to work from.
However designing an new XML schema from scratch and getting it right is not trivial.
And although trivial XSDs are simple if you run into any that are even a bit more than trivial and it is going to require real work to figure it out. And again designing one from scratch is not trivial and even more so than creating an XML schema since you must get both correct.
XSLT is substantially harder than both of the above since you not only basically need to know both of the above but you will also need to figure out how to invoke a XSLT interpreter and often will need to figure out how it interacts with outside entities.
Web Services as long as you keep it trivial and can find examples are not that hard to do, especially in C# but ONLY as long as you get lucky and understand the requirements of the API. If you need to interface with an existing web service or others outside vendors expect to interact with your new API then getting it right can be difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
the best i have seen is XML: Visual QuickStart Guide, 2nd Edition from Peachpit - Check here
|
|
|
|
|
XSLT for dummies is an excellent introduction and will give you a solid grounding in the subject. Search engines will teach you everything else you need to know!
Follow my mission to create a business application in LightSwitch at: http://therearefourlightswitches.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe replace F* with Elephant just in case a kid sister happens to pass by.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
So you object to "F***ing", but not to "Shoved up your ass" - What kind of Kid Sister DO you have after all? And is she free on friday evening? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience
Greg King
-----
I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific.
Lily Tomlin, Actress
|
|
|
|
|
I gave up reading it in full.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I've never understood the point of this partial censorship of words that's so popular on the web these days.
Do you really think that someone looks at F***ingA**hole and doesn't immediately translate it in their head to F***ingAsshole?
If they don't have the instinctive mental capacity to do this without even thinking, then they're probably too f***ing stupid to worry about offending in the first place.
Partial censorship is moronic. If you're going to employ censorship, remove the entire word, have a human rewrite the article so that it aligns with your personal agenda, or delete the whole thing.
Replacing characters with asterisks is nothing more than an attempt to be politically correct without really doing what you're pretending to do - "Look! We really care about eliminating bad words. See?"
Sorry, Chris. Not making fun of you. Making fun of the Interwebs. 
[edit] Just noticed that the post above has been automatically deleted for violating the Naughty Words rule. I suspect this one will suffer the same fate, even though it's making a point about said Naughty Words rule. Oh, well. At least it meets one of the criteria on my list. [/edit]
modified 17-Oct-13 7:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
Here it is, a ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ half ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ hour later and your ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ post is still ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ up. I can't ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ understand what your ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ problem with the ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ censorship thing. ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬!
▬▬▬▬ this ▬▬▬▬!
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, nice Les Paul. I jump up and down a lot and was afraid I'd dislocate my shoulder wielding one of those things, so I took to hot rodding Strats instead. But nothing sounds like the real thing!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! The weight doesn't bother me, I use a wide leather strap and that distributed the weight pretty well.
Can't knock the Strats, I have one of those as well there is nothing like the the clean tones of the middle and bridge PUPs on a Strat. And to give by back a rest (if it needs it...) I have nice lightweight ash 52 RI Tele that I love to rip in to.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
In the mid 90s I bought a new Les Paul Studio, thinking I'd use it to record with and perhaps on gigs since it's lighter. I've probably played it ten times. It just never really grabbed me. Half the price of a full on Les Paul and really not a bad guitar, but I think it's the lighter wood and slightly thinner body that makes the tone pale in comparison.
I really need to get around to selling it, as I'd like to pick up a good full humbucker solid body to gig with alongside the Strats. There's so much to choose from. Back in the day, the only real stuff out there was Fender and Gibson. Now there are just too many good guitars to choose from. I like the PRS, having played a couple of friends' but they're very proud of their product.
Also want to add a Tele someday. Beyond being a big Who / Townsend fan, was listening to Brothers in Arms the other day and was reminded of what good tones Mark Knopfler always gets.
Too many guitars to buy! 
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Duncan wrote: Too many guitars to buy
 I get G.A.S.* a lot, the only known cure is not having enough money to buy more guitars.
I know what you mean about the LP studios, I also bought one and just can't bond with it. The action is great, plays nice, and sounds OK but the other one is perfectly comfortable, it's an extension of my hands.
*(Guitar Aquisition Syndrome)
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a card carrying member of G.A.A. (Gear Acquirers Anonymous). Wanna buy 10,000 watts of stage lighting from my previous lighting rig? 
It's a great time to be a creative creature, ain't it?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
