Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

239 comments

Damn First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Dreadknott (848986) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500228)

cool

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500239)

first post

Binary... XML... Nah! (0, Offtopic)

Roguelazer (606927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500242)

The way I see it, XML's only benefit over something like SQL is that it -is- plain text and easily user modifiable. Binary XML seems to me more like a step backwards than a step fowards. Of course, I've never understood the buzzwordiness of XML anyway. Things like SOAP make it seem like a protocol when it's a format. I think that the W3C should be spending their time on XML implimentations like SVG, MathML and XHTML, not on things like this.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (3, Insightful)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500275)

except SQL isn't very useful when it comes to technologies like RSS say......

if you're using an XML file in a place where you need a high performance SQL database then you're doing something wrong. If you're using XML as datastorage for some small webapp who cares so long as it's fast enough for that particular application.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (2, Insightful)

FrankHaynes (467244) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500306)

if you're using an XML file in a place where you need a high performance SQL database then you're doing something wrong. If you're using XML as datastorage for some small webapp who cares so long as it's fast enough for that particular application.


As you point out, it is the wrong tool for the job, much like using tables to layout HTML pages (as the CSS religionists like to point out).

My 64 million dollar question is why they put an acronym inside another acronym: XOP stands for XMLOP? WTF??!!

They REALLY have too much time on their hands!

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500343)

AIM = AOL IM
GNU = GNU's Not Unix (and many other recursive acronyms)

To name a few :)

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500654)

While I'm sure there are some people out there who think the idea of an acronym that means itself is just the funniest thing ever, the gnu (the "g" is silent; it's pronounced "nu") is one of two species of African antelopes. They have big heads, long tails and horns. They smell fairly terrible, but they're really very beautiful ...as long as they're downwind.

Like I say, I'm sure there are some people who think the old "it's an acronym" joke is a real knee-slapper. But it's kind of a shame that the people who chose to name their organization after a beautiful animal turned around and dissed that animal by trying to define its name.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500763)

They didn't try to define the name of the animal. They defined their orginization's name. They are not trying to say the animal should also be pronounced with a hard 'g', just the opposite! It makes an easy distinction of whether your are talking about the animal or the orginization.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

dubious9 (580994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500687)

My favorite: VHDL [wikipedia.org] : VHSIC [wikipedia.org] Hardware Description Language.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500400)

it is the wrong tool for the job, much like using tables to layout HTML pages (as the CSS religionists like to point out)

CSS religionists like to deny the existence of the 90% browser [microsoft.com] , whose CSS implementation has too many bugs and deficiencies to make it a complete replacement for some forms of table based layout. Personally, I prefer using a hybrid of tables and CSS on sites that I develop.

My 64 million dollar question is why they put an acronym inside another acronym

It gets worse: RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Complexity; POWER = Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC; PPC = POWER for Personal Computers

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500485)

it is the wrong tool for the job, much like using tables to layout HTML pages (as the CSS religionists like to point out) CSS religionists like to deny the existence of the 90% browser, whose CSS implementation has too many bugs and deficiencies to make it a complete replacement for some forms of table based layout. Personally, I prefer using a hybrid of tables and CSS on sites that I develop.

Be fair...(and I am a Firefox guy) NO [ right...NO] browser fully conforms to CSS standards. I am a CSS religionist and have found it impossible to test my work since NO [right...NO] browser fully conforms to CSS standards...(Yes folks...that means CSS1 AND CSS2) BTW...I thought XML was on its way out...

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500668)

NO [ right...NO] browser fully conforms to CSS standards

Which kinda makes one question whether having such so-called "standards" is really worth all the trouble.

Amazingly, HTML compatibility was easier before it was "standards" this and "standards" that. There were certain constructs that only worked in certain browsers, sure, but we didn't have the god-awful mess of supposed-tos and should-nots that we have today.

It seems to me, from a distant perspective, that the problem with Web standards isn't that nobody adheres to them. It's that they're really shitty standards.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500506)

It gets worse: RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Complexity; POWER = Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC; PPC = POWER for Personal Computers

From GNU's Hurd page:

According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd:
"HURD" stands for "HIRD of Unix-Replacing Daemons". And, then, "HIRD" stands for "HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth". We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms.


:-)

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500555)

> It gets worse: RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Complexity; POWER = Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC; PPC = POWER for Personal Computers

Sorry I just have to write that one out completely (mod me redundant if you want)

PPC = Performance Optimization With Enhanced Reduced Instruction Set Computer for Personal Computers

Yes, RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computer btw.

So PPC is a computer for personal computers...

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1)

ingo23 (848315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500398)

The benefit of XML over SQL is that XML is a format while SQL is a language. It's like comparing a verb to a noun.

Things like SOAP do not make it seem like a protocol, they just use the format.

Adding binary objects to XML specs is going to be quite useful. And the point is not that you could not do that before. The point is to make it a standard.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (1, Insightful)

a_karbon_devel_005 (733886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500452)

Really? You can't see the benefit?

You mention SVG, but then you fail to see the benefit of reducing the size of, say, a large SVG file in a standards compliant way so that it can be transferred and take up less bandwidth. A good binary standard will DEFINITELY be smaller than the verbosity that is XML. Sure you can compress it, but when you compress a whole bunch of unneeded crap, you still have a whole bunch of unneeded crap... just compressed. If this standard reduces the amount of space it takes to write:
<someLongTagWithANameLikeThis>1</someLongTagWithAN ameLikeThis>

... that will help a lot. People have been clamoring for a STANDARDIZED recommendation for XML for a LONG time.

RTFA - Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (3, Informative)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500648)

It is not binary XML. It is a method to extract binary data that is embeded in XML (e.g. CDATA) and store it outside the XML, but in the same document. It is NOT a method to reduce the text encoding (overhead) of XML to a binary format.

Re:Binary... XML... Nah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500692)



Hey-

Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Mini Macs!

I've joined and I think you should as well.

It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff!

All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it!

Here is my referral link. To help me get my Mini Mac, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser:
http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=14249755 [freeminimacs.com]

hmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500244)

whatsa matter, everyone asleep already? it's been up for like 10 seconds!

Testimonial: Dancin Santa (5, Funny)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500247)

I was drownding in debt. There was no where to turn. My wife left me, my friends all left me. Even my dog, he left me too. I had to do something.

That's when I found Binary XML. They were able to help with the debt. They got the creditors off my back and got me back on my feet.

Thanks Binary XML!

(I thought this was going to be about a standardization of compressing XML files that got rid of the excess bloat in the markup.)

Re:Testimonial: Dancin Santa (1)

goodzilla (814324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500295)

hahahah i dont get it only nice use i seen of SQL is RSS anyways so i dont see the use :)

Re:Testimonial: Dancin Santa (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500340)

I was drowning in "maybe" or "perhaps" slashdot articles again. There was no real news in sight. My pickled horse left me. My limelight perl sherbet left me. My estranged bungee left me. Even my albatross cadaver, he left me, too. I had to do something.

That's when I saw Binary XML. They were able to give me a real, solid story. They got the Dancin' Santas on my back and a hedgehog on my porch.

Thanks Bob the Builder!

(I thought this was going to destroy my epsom salt epstein-barr files to get rid of the excess methcathinone lumberjacks.)

More bloat! (4, Insightful)

Hobart (32767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500387)

I thought this was going to be about a standardization of compressing XML files that got rid of the excess bloat in the markup.
So did I. Then I looked at that example [w3.org] and my heart sank. What the hell! 12 lines of bloated crap text turned into 46+ lines of worse bloated crap!

And they're going to do what, say "gzip it" ? The amount of bandwidth and CPU time this wastes is abysmal.

Someone needs to stop these people.

Re:More bloat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500493)

I agree. You should sign my petition to get rid of the stupid W3C and RFC systems:

psp:\0somewhere!out-there***:screw^the.w3c

psp is, of course, my custom petition-signing-protocol (you can snag the specs from sdp:\0somewhere!out-there**#:specs^psp.pl1&wombats . sdp, is, of course, the spec download protocol, which is named sdp.ada in the same specifier but requires an access level of "tiger.")

Re:More bloat! (1)

rohanl (152781) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500548)

Then I looked at that example and my heart sank. What the hell! 12 lines of bloated crap text turned into 46+ lines of worse bloated crap!

You do realise that the original just includes file names, and the XOP version actually includes the serialised data, don't you!

Re:More bloat! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500595)

So did I. Then I looked at that example [w3.org] and my heart sank. What the hell! 12 lines of bloated crap text turned into 46+ lines of worse bloated crap!

The examples given in the article haven't included the binary data for berevity. The problem that exists now is that binary data has to be encoded into a form compatible with the charset of the document, which usually means base64. This increases the size of binary documents enourmously (think twice), and also requires CPU cycles to encode it.

Being able to send the binary data in a seperate MIME payload means it doesn't need to be encoded in this manner which is a big help for any reasonable sized binary resources. It also means they become first class MIME objects and can have associated headers which provides additional benefits.

Re:More bloat! (1)

Laxitive (10360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500630)


What the hell is wrong with just gzipping it?
It's just another encoding that happens to be source-language agnostic and provide redundancy elimination.

You have no problem with the overhead of parsing binary XML, but dictionary lookups and tree rotations involved in decoding a compressed file.. that's out of the question?

Not to mention the added benefit that a standard compression layer shrinks not just the tags, but the content as well.

Look, stop thinking of gzip (or bzip, or whatever), as a "compression" scheme. Just think of it as a input-language agnostic encoding mechanism which has the added bonus of eliminating redundancy.

-Laxitive

Re:More bloat! (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500681)

Just think of it as a input-language agnostic encoding mechanism which has the added bonus of eliminating redundancy.

Yeah, leave the redundancy to Slashdot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe professionals!

Re:More bloat! (1)

starm_ (573321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500684)

"You have no problem with the overhead of parsing binary XML, but dictionary lookups and tree rotations involved in decoding a compressed file.. that's out of the question?"

huh... last time I checked binary was the language the computer natively understood and it didn't need to be parsed or processed in anyway by software.

Also, it seems to me that he did have a problem with the parsing of the XML part.

Re:More bloat! (2, Insightful)

Laxitive (10360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500779)

Uhm, you still need to parse the XML structure.

Technically, ASCII is binary, too. 'A' is 65, which is 01000001. Binary XML will not do away with parsing. The tags will still be there, the content will still be there. Only the restriction that the tags must be an alphanumeric string will be lifted.

Making things "binary" doesn't magically remove the burden of parsing. You know the binary executables you run? The system loader loads it.. and parses it, and arranges it in memory the way it needs to be arranged, and tells the cpu "ok, start executing the code located here". Anything with structure needs to be parsed if you want to manipulate and query that structure in any meaningful way.. and XML is all about structure.

-Laxitive

Re:Testimonial: Dancin Santa (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500436)

My wife left me, my friends all left me. Even my dog, he left me too. I had to do something.

Your life is a country song. For better results, try playing it backwards.

I got my wife back, my car back, my house back, and a full bottle of whiskey at the end!

Re:Testimonial: Dancin Santa (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500471)

I got my wife back, my car back, my house back, and a full bottle of whiskey at the end!

Lucky you. I played my record backwards and the Devil from Georgia shows up. Took a while to get rid of that son of a gun. :)

Old Ike (0, Offtopic)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500250)

When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard on that won't quit.

Sixty years ago,I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white under the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did nott chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

Old Ike, he extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old man winked at me. "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game.

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men. . ."

"I'll bet you do."

". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.

"I though we were talking about. . ."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as browwn as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his hightop work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then stuck it out far enough that the tip could touch the tip of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never. . ."

"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiousity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgemental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't beiing queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a handside the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

***

We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed Ike to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Ike, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in old Ike's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Ike return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Ike's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yer sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Ike shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanccd over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Ike. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "I t sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Ike slid his fingers back and forth on his expandingshaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I 'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Ike's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Ike.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

Ike followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Ike grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Ike. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Ike.

"Yessiree," said Ike, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause Ikeep excerising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some sayyou'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been puling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Ike.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Ike. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Ike's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Ike.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma 'wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Ike. "A hard-on is somethng I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on fromall this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Ike what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Ike grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiositythat needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Ike. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to ajust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Ike grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

Old Ike's about to spout a geyser." Ike breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Ike held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Ike sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaing drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle foming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Ike.

***

"Cock-tale telling time," said Old Ike. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Ike licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his caloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Ike, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches. . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do. . ."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree whan I was seven.

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Ike.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Nineteen almost twenty."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not.

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass. "I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a fewhard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Ike. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Ike. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Ike. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and graypubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Ike moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Ike leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't. . ."

"C'mon, boy. Show Ike your peckeer. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Ike stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't. . ."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Ike. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Ike's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Ike licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd sayyou're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Ike's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Ike toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Ike. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Ike to lick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Ike licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Ike might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and procede to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

***

The following day, We skipped the peliminaries. We dropped our pants. Ike got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Ike's tight, brown hole and massage old Ike's prostate.

Ike bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accomodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

""It'll go," said Ike. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Ike. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Ike's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Ike one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back amd then pulled it up and over the expaded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Ike come!"

I came. And I came. Ike's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Ike. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Ike returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Ike were here.

nothing else to work on? (3, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500268)

The tech industry seems really starved for ideas lately.

Binary file formats are hard.
Let's use XML because it's easier.
No wait... let's represent that XML in a more efficeint binary format.
Ah yeah that's the ticket - the best of both worlds!

Now let me just fire up my code-morphing processor which, through emulation ahieves x86 compatibility with "low" power consumption. Never mind it's slower overall and has worse MIPS/mW than an underclocked x86 - look Ma, we *inveted* something!!!!

There are some real technical problems out there... why are people chasing non-problems like XML?

Re:nothing else to work on? (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500352)

There are some real technical problems out there... why are people chasing non-problems like XML?
Because they're hacks more into buzzword bingo and "selling the next big thing"?

Whatever happened to the virtues of simplicity, like a file containing a header record detailing the field names, and rows containing the data in either fixed-length or delimited form? Damn fast to implement, debug, read from and write to. Parsing? What parsing? Read the first line, split it to get your headers, and read 1 line per record.

Ideal for data exchange. Easy to manipulate via javascript on the client. Simple to display and manipulate via the DOM (Document Object Model). Not resource-hungry. Handles both text and binary data. Dirt easy on the server.

I ran a test to compare, and I'm able to select, format, and serve 1000 records this way in less time than 100 records in simple HTML, never mind xml. By doing this, the client can page through, say, 25 records at a time without having to hit the server every few seconds to see the next/prev pages.

Noscript (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500414)

[CSV is] Easy to manipulate via javascript on the client. Simple to display and manipulate via the DOM (Document Object Model).

Problem: A lot of users will try to browse your site with DOM scripting turned off to avoid the more annoying advertisements and malware installers. What will you put in the <noscript> element?

Re:Noscript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500448)

Problem: A lot of users will try to browse your site with DOM scripting turned off to avoid the more annoying advertisements and malware installers. What will you put in the element?

This page is designed to be viewed with scripting enabled. Enable scripting and click here to refresh, or click here [goatse/tubgirl].

Accessibility? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500640)

This page is designed to be viewed with scripting enabled. Enable scripting and click here to refresh, or click here [goatse/tubgirl]

Which text-based web UA supports DOM scripting? Or would you deliberately shut out users with vision disabilities and run the risk of losing your U.S. government contracts under Section 508 and having to defend a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act or foreign counterparts?

Re:Noscript (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500482)

I'd tell them to switch to firefox :-)

It's time to stop thinking of "web sites" and start thinking along the lines of "web apps" - not the old-style form-based "web app", but more along the lines of gmail - heavily client-side-scripted, nice presentation and data manipulation.

What I see is very few pages (or even just 1 page) as the UI, data exchanged between server and client w/o page refreshes (can be done just w. javascript by sticking the data in iframes with a width and height of 0px, and reading/writing to the iframe. no need for a separate "data window" hidden from view - happy coincidence - I wrote code to do this last night).

These work without a hassle even with popup blockers, etc. It's not necessary to turn off *all* scripting capabilities. Just get a competent browser :-)

Screen readers (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500655)

I'd tell them to switch to firefox :-)

How well do the major Gecko-based web UAs work with screen readers, compared to say Lynx/Links/w3m?

Don't need an iframe (1)

michaelggreer (612022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500721)

Grab the data directly into javascript with xmlhttprequest. However, the web has many Ui conventions now which people don't want broken, even if its better. I still keep hitting the back button in Gmail, and I think it should work that way.

Re:nothing else to work on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500449)

Has anyone else written file based upload code for HTTP. It is hideous! This is the same crapola. MIME is soooo slow, and such a pain in the arse. No length fields, why? I have to say it is actually nastier than ASN.1 and that is really hard to beat!

Oh lord. How can they be touting this... I can understand MS getting behind this crap, but what is wrong with IBM and BEA. Short their stocks now!

Re:nothing else to work on? (2, Informative)

lupin_sansei (579949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500584)

What you are talking about is CSV. CSV is great, but it's only any good for table structured data. You can't implement a tree or any arbitrary nested structure like you can in XML.

Re:nothing else to work on? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500629)

id, parentid, tag, text
1, -, root, yes you can
2, 1, child, it's simple
3, 1, child, do it like you would in actual code
4, 3, grandchild, you don't really think memory has magical trees in it do you?
5, 4, answer, it doesn't
6, 1, child, you can create trees in CSV

==

<root>yes you can
<child>it's simple</child>
<child>do it like you would in actual code
<grandchild>you don't really think memory has magical trees in it do you?
<answer>it doesn't</answer>
</grandchild>
</child>
<child>you can create trees in CSV</child>
</root>

Which one is *really* easier to parse? (Not necessarily read.)

Re:nothing else to work on? (1)

lupin_sansei (579949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500704)

XML is easier to parse, since I can use the XML parser that comes with the browser's DOM implementation, or my languages API.

Re:nothing else to work on? (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500691)

I generally agree with you except:

1) Endianness will probably cause problems when you least want them.

2) Parsing wide-character string data can be a pain.

I mostly think XML is 95% overrated and 5% genuine usefulness, but, in a world of people who have never heard of a big-endian computer regardless of a degree CS/CE/EE, it's a tough call.

You know, I think colleges should start offering 4-year degrees in XML. That way we would be assured of having a few people in the world who actually know how to use it properly.

Re:nothing else to work on? (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500666)

I'm waiting for the fantastic MIPS/MW of the Pentium VIIV!

Re:nothing else to work on? (0, Redundant)

firewrought (36952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500676)

<sarcasm>
Chip fabrication is hard.
Let's make general purpose CPU's that can be programmed. It's easier!
No wait... let's use PICs so that our {small electronics project} doesn't need an ATX case.
Ah yeah that's the ticket - the best of both worlds!
</sarcasm>


Binary XML *does* give you the best of both worlds, for the most part. Remember that binary formats, in general, are bad because a human cannot infer much about the information they represent or how to change that information w/o violating the format. Remember that XML gives a programmer many advantages over other text-based formats, including the ability to create new languages without having to write a parser; the ability to mix vocabularies from multiple languages; and the ability to use a wide array of pre-existing tools (XSLT, xpath, text editors, schema validators, etc.) on newly minted data models.

Binary XML is a logical compromise: there's a greater risk of conflicting implementations and it will be more difficult to repair a corrupted file, but--in general--programmers will still be able to see the underlying data model by reading the binary glob through DOM or by dumping it to text. And it will be much more efficent.

Note also that this spec is rather rote: no real "chasing" done here.

I'll Take One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500291)

I'll take a binary extra medium large to go please.

I for one... (1)

Vombatus (777631) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500304)

welcome our XML wrapped binary overlords

or is that our XML-binary Optimised Packaged overlords?

Binary XML Lite (4, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500307)

Here's my binary XML-like file format which gives the best of both text and binary file formats. It's human readable and efficient at the same time! Finally, an end to the text-versus-binary wars. Here's an example file:

The following data is in binary.
UH)(&T^( @#t79nui**&tb x9#@ $Y*_@$ji[P{O@JIOHXIOU$HIIU#$hiuoHOP$UJ [etc.]

Re:Binary XML Lite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500469)

Binary XML will enable superior buzz word compatibility to existing technologies. Here's your syntax for Word 2006 format:

Now everyone can use Microsoft formats! It's open, it's flexible, it's human parsable and compatible with all XML-enabled solutions *.

*) Some assembly needed (pun intended).

Re:Binary XML Lite / repost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500479)

Binary XML will enable superior buzz word compatibility to existing technologies. Here's your syntax for Word 2006 format:

<xml><bin src="oldWordCrap.doc"/></xml>

Now everyone can use Microsoft formats! It's open, it's flexible, it's human parsable and compatible with all XML-enabled solutions *.

*) Some assembly needed (pun intended).

twO THUMbs Up!! (1)

goodzilla (814324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500313)

these testimonials [w3.org] are so much like the TWO THUMBS UP !! type things you see for movies like this one [imdb.com]

Seems like a great way to package media... (2, Insightful)

bryanrieger (854070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500318)

This seems like it would be an ideal fit for services such as Flickr as it would allow for image (or other binary media files) to be sent with xml data - in a compressed binary format.

Re:Seems like a great way to package media... (1)

psyclone (187154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500422)

Exactly. It seems like a way to have a "text" file that is easily parsed (all the XML info -- in this case possibly a description, comments, image meta-data, etc.), yet binary info (a jpeg compressed image) fits along-side for when you want it. One file with all the goodies.

How this is different than simply base64 encoding the image inside a tag is yet to be seen. Perhaps because it's a standard?

Re:Seems like a great way to package media... (2, Interesting)

malfunct (120790) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500444)

I would assume because base64 coding of binary data bloats its size (I think up to 40% additional size over the uncoded binary) and takes time to encode/decode. If you were to be able to put a marker in an element that says "binary blob 100 goes here" and include binary blob 100 in some other area that is pure binary then you would have the binary data without encoding overhead.

We have a Winner! (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500693)

Only 120 posts before someone said something more intelligent than, 'Binary XML, blecchho!'

Only wish I had a prize for you. :)

As a software developer (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500322)

As a software developer I find this particularly good.

While I myself would prefer to write a binary protocol and send the data through a TCP socket I can no longer do that.

When we land big contracts at work that deal in government and health the key thing they need now is interoperability with others. What does this mean? XML. Whether or not you like it, XML is here to stay. Its what everyone is pushing.

Therefore we had to adapt and start using it. Not just for B2B, our rich desktop clients now communicate with the server using XML web services.

The problem we've encountered is sending binary data. Right now we have to encode the data in base64 XML which uses lots of resources. I will give more look at this but it looks particularly good.

Re:As a software developer (1)

andalay (710978) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500363)

So Binary XML solves the problem that XML creates?

Something to think about.

Re:As a software developer (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500702)

B2B ... rich desktop clients ... XML web services

Baarrrffff!

Re:As a software developer (2, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500715)

Yes, but this is what ASN1 encoding is for. It's a structured, self-describing encoding scheme that works very well for structured data. What advantages does this binary XML have over ASN1? Both require external descriptions to attach meaning to the data.

In your case, ASN1 is what you should be using, not XML in the first place.

Now I can embed my evil virus without the... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500323)

.. virus scanner picking it up!

evil virus/xml?

Uhhh... (5, Informative)

Phexro (9814) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500327)

Unless I'm horribly misreading the specification, it appears to be a way to package up XML documents and binary data that they reference into a neat package with MIME - not a way to convert a (text) XML document into a binary one.

Re:Uhhh... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500358)

You'd be entirely correct.

Of course, this is Slashdot.

Thank you! (3, Informative)

gammoth (172021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500404)

I thought I was losing my mind.

Re:Thank you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500518)

Are you sure your not, I know I am.

Re:Thank you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500556)

No you're not. Yes I am. No. Yes. No. Yes...

Re:Uhhh... (1)

Albinofrenchy (844079) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500475)

Yeah, you are most definatly right on that. Looks like CowboyNeal needs to RTFA.

Sounds like a good idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500344)

Personally, I think it sounds like a good idea.

Large amounts of information stored in XML format can be costly on storage and network transmission and without some kind of compression. Basically, it's a waste of space.

Just because it's compressed, doesn't mean it can't be human readable... your favourite XML reader/editor will just have to implement the new standard to de/compress it, and it'll be back to it's human readable state.

We all know how much space you can save if you zip a large text file or bmp, so whats wrong with compressing a bit of XML.

Here it comes (1)

ICECommander (811191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500368)

This sounds like the era of small/efficient XML is gonna end: here comes the bloat! (Remember Netscape)

a bit confused (1)

newsdee (629448) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500388)

I'm a bit confused... reading the document, it seems that the difference between XML and SOP is just where the data is:

XML:
<mylabel>(text)</mylabel>
<mydata>(stuff in binary)</mydata>
XOP:
<mylabel>(text)</mylabel>
<mydata>"hey, there's stuff in binary here, id 1!"</mydata>
---- MIME ---
Binary ID 1: (stuff in binary)
Is this right? So the benefit is just standardizing the binary representation using MIME? But that doesn't make the tags less verbose... so how is this faster than XML?

Re:a bit confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500408)

XML documents are null terminated. The binary data is not guaranteed to not contain a zero.

Also, binary data may contain other XML data which may accidentally close a tag or introduce a tag that totally messes up the formatting.

Re:a bit confused (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500454)

Um, I believe that the data was encoded in the same manner as the "optimized" format, it's just that now you have to put it at the end in a MIME encapsulated formatting. Zero doesn't factor into this in the first place. Now, concerns of accidentally closing a tag might play into things, but the likelihood of this actually happening is slim to none as the coincidence of "" in a base 64 stream is going to be an astronomical feat. However, I buy into that as a reason (can't have accidental data loss that way...) but to call it "optimized" is really, really counter-intuitive as it's NOT optimal.

This is NOT binary XML (5, Insightful)

IHateSlashDot (823890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500399)

I can't believe all of the replies making fun of this because they think it's a binary representation of XML. Didn't anyone read the RFC that was referenced in the summary?

This is simply a way to reference binary data from within an XML document and to have that binary data included in the same payload (using MIME).

Passing binary data in XML is a big problem. Everybody just invents their own method of doing it (although most are just variations on the theme presented here).

There is a need for this specicification but it is not ground breaking or even particularly /. newsworth.

Re:This is NOT binary XML (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500533)

This is simply a way to reference binary data from within an XML document and to have that binary data included in the same payload (using MIME).

And you find this less absurd?!?

Re:This is NOT binary XML (1)

lupin_sansei (579949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500591)

What was wrong with CDATA? I thought you could embed binary into XML that way.

Re:This is NOT binary XML (1)

Leo McGarry (843676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500690)

The "c" in "CDATA" stands for "character." It's technically supposed to include character data encoded in the document's character set.

Can you put arbitrary bytes into a "CDATA" section? Sure, prolly. But there are people out there who get paid by the hour to cook up new standards for stuff we'd already figured out. You don't want them to have to go out and get real jobs, do you?

Re:This is NOT binary XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500645)

> Didn't anyone read the RFC that was referenced in the summary?
You're new here right?

Re:This is NOT binary XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500657)

Didn't anyone read the RFC that was referenced in the summary?
New here you must be.

In Soviet Russia, you tell the newbie to RTFA.

What's the deal? (1)

j.bellone (684938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500409)

I really don't understand. XML is great for information that might need to be easily parsed, readed, or changed by a number of applications. In fact; it's probably something that we've needed a lot longer than we've had it. But that's where it ends.

Usually (at least, from my limited experience) a serialized object from a program is normally only needed to be loaded up by that program (which usually results in their own .dat files). Still when I have been toying around with my own serializer; I haven't found a need to actually need to hand change any of this information.

Why reinvent the wheel though? It seems this would only be useful in web application for a database of sorts. The only usefulness (actual useful ness) would be for a document format (Word, Excel, Access, etc). This is the type of format that you would want to be portable; easily changeable (if need be) by hand; and thrown across several different platforms where it can be read.

I guess that would make there to be a use for it then; but do we really need a standard for the such? Anyone who plans on using this idea will create their own standard anyway (look what Apple has done with their new format for Pages).

Could have been simpler (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500420)

.. if they just mimic'd the CDATA section with an equivalent BDATA section. Would be so easy to just jump to the end of the binary data given the BDATA offset and continue on.

I know it's easy, because that's exactly what I did, hacked the gnome libxml library and it worked nicely, was easy to code (yank/paste from CDATA) and best of all it was *fast* without consuming resources like base64 does (tried that too originally).

Re:Could have been simpler: Data:URL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500757)

Data:URL! Implement Data:URL!

Encodes the frickin MIME type and base64 encoding inline!

Hey, where's the frickin binary tokenization dictionary of the XML elements for compact XML, with encoding schemes?

This is just an advertisement for all 835 MIME RFCs.

Critiques (4, Informative)

Effugas (2378) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500432)

Ummm...it's "OK". This is probably the least ambitious Binary XML spec imaginable. That may actually be good, but I don't know. Lets see what's up here...

First of all, it's completely impossible to stream this format. All the binary chunks have to be read at some point in the future when the actual XML non-opaque content is complete. In a stream, that never happens. (Of course, XML isn't the most stream friendly protocol...you can't validate a stream.)

Secondly, this isn't wonderful for large files either; you're constantly seeking for binary data that can be many megabytes away. We solve this in web pages by having the images be completely separate (binary) files.

Thirdly, its telling that they used a PNG as a data type. Besides being yet another file format that needs its own custom binary parser (heh, I like PNG, I'm just complaining about it in the XML whinespace), it's big and simple and there's just one there. One of the things I really liked about the various Binary XML formats was the degree to which they expressly typed things like arrays of floating point values or little-endian integers. Converting values between binary and string format is an enormously painful process, one that frankly I'm astonished hasn't received CPU acceleration at this point. Every other Binary XML format has seriously thought about how to efficiently but correctly manage large arrays of such values. XOP just says...heh...you wanna dump alot of data efficiently? Check your typing at the door. Feel free to bring a buffer-overflow ridden parser in with you if you like, though.

Don't get me wrong, there's a fundamental simplicity to XOP that I can certainly understand how it's appealing. But it seems to go so massively against what XML represents that I'm not entirely sure XOP encoded content deserves to be compliant with the very regulations that forced XML adoption in the first place: Opaque formats are too expensive to maintain for any amount of time, therefore either self-describe or don't get deployed. A self-decribing document that says "All performance-critical content is opaque" seems rather counter to this spirit.

Re:Critiques (1)

thpr (786837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500568)

I agree with your post - and really wonder what people are doing with binary data in their XML files anyway. But I digress from what I wanted to ask about:

Converting values between binary and string format is an enormously painful process, one that frankly I'm astonished hasn't received CPU acceleration at this point.

This initially strikes me as a brilliant idea, but as I got to reply, I'm wondering how useful it would really be. Many if not all of things we accelerate today (e.g. FPU and matrix operations) have have significant uses in loops which do not require significant access to memory - which is the bottleneck in a typical PC.

Under the assumption that XML is being used for I/O of some sort, I would guess that the network, disk or memory is already the bottleneck. I can't envision a small loop that could swamp the CPU with conversion (like a scientific simulation could swamp a CPU without an FPU because the calculations don't necessarily drive heavy memory access)

I'm thinking out loud here, but can you think of a conversion case (XML or not) where the conversion speedup wouldn't just cause a greater bottleneck on the memory bus?

Re:Critiques (1)

Effugas (2378) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500664)

Hmm. Threw together some code to play with this.
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
char *mixed = "0.123124 12345";
double foo;
int bar;

int i;

for(i=0; i<1000000; i++){
sscanf(mixed, "%f %i", &foo, &bar);
}
}
Results:
$ time ./bench.exe

real 0m2.541s
user 0m2.393s
sys 0m0.010s
So we're looking at maybe 787K symbols per second on my machine, at 100% CPU. How does this translate to XML parsers? You're right, this is something I should look into.

Re:Critiques (1)

OldMiner (589872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500784)

This looks like a false benchmark. You're keeping mixed in cache the whole time. In parsing actual XML, you'd be loading new strings in and out of the cache the whole time. As stated by grandparent, I doubt you'd be CPU bound.

not totally pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500440)

atleast this spec is some what useful. What is more useless is XML signature, which feels like a total waste. talk about a solution looking for a problem.

Headline should read... (4, Funny)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500464)

"Remember the recent discussion on Binary XML? Well, this has nothing to do with it, but we are proud to present a standard for larding out XML even more before attaching it to an email."

I, for one, welcome our new bandwidth eating plaintext overlords.

Dave

Why??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500480)

Binary XML? Why not just gzip it?
Now I don't know much about XML, but I think you should check the link below.
Official news link [google.com]

Re:Why??? (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500528)

Agreed on both counts!
Whats wrong with getting the regular xml and zipping/compressing it with your tool of choice? Does it really need a whole new spec?
In other news, I'm putting that link in my sig.

This business will get out of control. (1)

wizard_of_wor (849406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500512)

It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Seriously, this is strongly reminiscent of designing C++ APIs, called only in-process by C++ code, that use XML blobs for every single parameter type. I came across one of these and asked the "architect" why he chose to use XML for every parameted (at significant cost).

"Well, you know, it's XML," he said.

"And?" I asked.

"Well, it's... I mean, c'mon, it's extensible," he explained.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. And there are too many developers who are a few parts short of a toolbox.

Re:This business will get out of control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500536)

Oh my fucking god I would kill that person to death

Maybe I forgot to mention... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500659)

For those who didn't RTFA:

The main application of this XML-referencing-to-binary-attachments is SOAP, and that means web services.

In other words, you can simplify your God-help-me-XML-handling-and-parsing-code into something maybe 10% simpler. This means leaving the binary stuff OUT OF THE XML PARSER, putting it into the upper levels or processing. Cleaner, faster.

Also, it helps adaptive compression (gzip) by tightening up the textual data - remember web services are about information transfer, not storage.

WTF acrynoym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500673)

Can anyone please explain what the heck all these buzzwords mean: like SOAP, XAML, etc. I understand XML (s-expressions but with neat angled brackets!) but the rest could use concise descriptions.

Script Data Structures in place of XML (3, Interesting)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500685)

I am currently writing a xul client/server application. I am using the xmlhttprequest function. however instead of processing xml data which is very slow, especially when you need to parse a data set several times a second, I started sending data stuctures in javascript code instead. This I believe is what Google Suggest does also.

In addition the server code is written in perl so for storing status and configuration information, I used serialized perl data strucures processing requirements fell dramatically. With serialized scipt you still have the clear text editing and inspection capabilities without the speed and space issues. for example instead of
<container>
<title name="title">
<item><name>Name1</name>
<item><name>Name2</name>
<description>Bla bla</description>
</container>

You have:

{
title=>"title",
item=>[ { name=>"Name1" }, { name=>"Name2" } ],
description=>"Bla bla"
}
It seems like serialized script code, in either perl, python, java provides the benefits of xml without the headaches.

Re:Script Data Structures in place of XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500748)

If you think Perl is readable :P

Oh so we store it using binary (1)

dynamo (6127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11500769)

Find me an XML file that is not already represented as binary data. Oh, not looking so revolutionary now, is it?

Wait, you say this allows xml to reference binary data? I say "href" attribute, bi-atch, look it up.

You say, but no, it allows you to send the binary data along in the same stream / document? Check out multipart/mime. It's been around a long time.

Here's a wild thought. Have the XML file reference it's binary resources by relative filenames. Tar the XML file together with the resources. Now pay me $100,000 in consulting fees.

My Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500794)

Gay!

torrents inside RSS feed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11500809)

So does this mean a 20k torrent can be actually inside an XML list now instead of just a link to it?

If so, I think distribution just got a whole lot easier.

Then again the poor servers sending 10k files have a hard enough time with people checking every 10 minutes, imagine if the file was 200k, crikey!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...