Talk:XML Sources
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(âRename: I found another discussion that I can be a part of!) |
(Could it have been made valid?) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
''<nerd>''On the remote chance that anyone wants to know, these aren't "real" XML files technically because they have no document element. (Any "real" XML file must have exactly one tag that encloses all other tags, like the <HTML>...</HTML> in HTML files. This special tag is called the "document element" because it "is" the file in certain contexts.) You will notice if you try to open the files in Firefox. I wonder what exotic programs TBC use to process these files...--[[User:80.135.101.16|80.135.101.16]] 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)''</nerd>'' | ''<nerd>''On the remote chance that anyone wants to know, these aren't "real" XML files technically because they have no document element. (Any "real" XML file must have exactly one tag that encloses all other tags, like the <HTML>...</HTML> in HTML files. This special tag is called the "document element" because it "is" the file in certain contexts.) You will notice if you try to open the files in Firefox. I wonder what exotic programs TBC use to process these files...--[[User:80.135.101.16|80.135.101.16]] 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)''</nerd>'' | ||
:TBC (or, more to the point, [[Jonathan Howe]]) just uses the built-in Flash XML parser... it's much more lenient than a proper XML parser, and will let you load XML files with all kinds of errors... {{User:Phlip/sig}} 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | :TBC (or, more to the point, [[Jonathan Howe]]) just uses the built-in Flash XML parser... it's much more lenient than a proper XML parser, and will let you load XML files with all kinds of errors... {{User:Phlip/sig}} 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| - | + | ::Wait, couldn't Flash's XML Parser still parse child tags inside of a parent tag, though? If so, then it ''could have'' been valid XML. --[[Special:Contributions/64.149.213.65|64.149.213.65]] 03:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |
== podcast.xml == | == podcast.xml == | ||
Revision as of 03:20, 19 November 2008
Why are these noteworthy? Qduk 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? Anyway, this page listed 1-Up's proper name before Stinkoman 20X6 came out. --Jay (Gobble) 20:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
<nerd>On the remote chance that anyone wants to know, these aren't "real" XML files technically because they have no document element. (Any "real" XML file must have exactly one tag that encloses all other tags, like the <HTML>...</HTML> in HTML files. This special tag is called the "document element" because it "is" the file in certain contexts.) You will notice if you try to open the files in Firefox. I wonder what exotic programs TBC use to process these files...--80.135.101.16 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)</nerd>
- TBC (or, more to the point, Jonathan Howe) just uses the built-in Flash XML parser... it's much more lenient than a proper XML parser, and will let you load XML files with all kinds of errors... --phlip TC 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, couldn't Flash's XML Parser still parse child tags inside of a parent tag, though? If so, then it could have been valid XML. --64.149.213.65 03:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
podcast.xml
Should podcast.xml be added to this page? It isn't exactly a secret, given that it's on the Podstar Runner index page... --
ENUSY 
18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be added, secret or otherwise. If the name is what's troubling you, then maybe XML Sources be a better title? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Rename
I don't think the name for this page is appropriate. None of these are are "secret" pages per se, even according to the criteria listed on Secret Pages. They are linked to on the site, albeit not in a way that is visibile to end users — but they are the source used to generate the respective features. I think we should use XML source as ELCool suggested above. (Even though they are not XML files ... also already noted above).
Not really related question, should links to HR:rando.xml point here instead? The real file is linked to in this article, and it would provide some explanation to folks before linking them straight to a technical source file that isn't neccecarily meaningful without knowing what it's for. 
Green Helmet 11:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree on both counts. — Defender1031*Talk 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sounds better. I never did like the current name anyway. Homestar-Winner (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
