|
dandy72 wrote: The problem is not what we call the different times, but what people in different timezones are doing at those various times.
That doesn't go away by labeling different real times by identical labels. Quite to the contrary. People do different things at various times. Having a common time reference makes that obvious, makes us aware of it, so we can relate to it, and handle it.
Using the same time label to indicate (or rather: vaguely suggest) daily activities is usually somewhere between 'directly misguiding' to 'approximate, at best'. You can't deduce anything from it. It causes a lot of problems when you need to coordinate things across time zones.
If you want to set up a conference call that possibly spans multiple time zones, I cannot see any advantage whatsoever doing this by relating specifically to EST/EDT, CST/CDT, MST/MDT, PST/PDT, AKST/AKDT or any similarly varying European, Pacific or Asian time zone. For anything but your local time zone, you will have to consider the "sun time", as well as local customs: Standard working hours may start a different times of the "solar day", in different cultures. Relating such aspects to a single, unified time scale may be far easier than having to convert everything into your personal conception of time.
You will have to relate to all the time zones anyway! You may juggle around MET, EST, CDST, NST, PST as you like - maybe you will never confuse them (yeah, I trust you 100%), but will everyone around you be equally perfect? I wouldn't trust that unconditionally.
if you feel a draft, it may be coming from my side.
|
|
|
|
|
Is a cat on TV actually a Teletabby?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly on digitail media? A modern day replacement for rabbit-ears, perhaps? Beclaws cats are so inscrutable it's litter-ly a puzzle.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
And would you record a female kitten on a videocattette?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if it's a Caturday morning cartoon.
|
|
|
|
|
If a hairless cat was running away from a dog, would it be a BalderDash?
there is no such thing as a free lunch
|
|
|
|
|
Just why.
I spent an hour fighting with XmlSerialisers to try and get my object mapped to a schema. Changing names, trying to get attributes setup, dealing with CDATA. I gave up. I got so fed up I simply wrote the XML directly as a raw string. If I could have kicked it I would have kicked it.
I totally get the beauty of having data in a class and throwing it at different serialisers and having it Just Work. Switch between XML and Json and maybe binary and text and build out this whole massive ecosystem that screams "I'm trying to do too much!".
But dear lord. It's like root canal surgery.
Is anyone actively using XML as a data transport format? I get that we all use it in things like XAML and ASP.NET pages and the whole HTML thing, but as something that is not seen or edited by humans, that needs to be cognizant of bandwidth, is it still being used in that manner or am I just really, really intolerant this morning?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I had the same problem just a couple days ago.
I ended up throwing the XML into this[^] and it generated the C# code which worked perfectly and showed me what I was doing wrong. 
Chris Maunder wrote: s anyone actively using XML as a data transport format?
Sadly, yes. Lots of legacy systems or old API's that never got updated to JSON. 
|
|
|
|
|
oooh! That is SO useful - thanks for the link, Marc!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THANK YOU A LOT 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Lots of legacy systems or old API's that never got updated to JSON.
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 12-Jan-21 10:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks pretty good - ReSharper is going nuts on it but who cares!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Dang, what did Raddius say or do, he is trusted member of ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) 's court.
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps he tried to delete the post, and the system made the message closed because others responded?
I thought it weird as well.
|
|
|
|
|
It appears he posted a link to something that is verbotten.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I've found that .NET XML serialization works fine and is relatively simple as long as .NET is doing the round-tripping. I've occasionally had to write my own serializers, but that's usually fairly trivial.
Adapting it to an existing schema or otherwise-specified form is a PITA. Instead of being able to say "handle this in XML", you essentially have to write code that implements the schema. This of course sucks, because the schema changes all the time (trust me, it's in the rules). You only get basic parsing out of the .NET XML support if you go this route.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Some guy somewhere had a bad dream and woke up with the idea: now how can I make something totally confusing and complicated which computers can read effortlessly but humans will find totally incomprehensible? He came up with XML and ticked all the necessary boxes/requirements perfectly.
Personally I am not a fan of javascript but boy did they get that JSON stuff right. Whatever programming language you care to use the JSON data exchange is dead easy to follow and debug. Leave the hard interpreting stuff to computers, not humans. For god's sake: that is why we designed them for !!!
|
|
|
|
|
That's what killed me: I have a working implementation in Json but needed (evidently) to have it work in XML too.
Json: it just worked. Next?
XML: my life is a miserable series of pointless failures
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a job interview. 
|
|
|
|
|
I use XML all the time with LINQ in C#. It's easy and simple.
"I used to write COBOL, now I can do anything..."
|
|
|
|
|
It was designed by a committee and shows it. When I use XML I try and use attributes to store the data, it makes the payload much smaller and I avoid nesting if possible. LinQ is good with XML and XDocuments.
|
|
|
|
|
The XML-hype is history. try json it is smaller, better readable and a lot of parsers can handle it.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
