Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Didier PH Martin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'XML Dev'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:46:42 -0400
Ah yes but in the case of BizTalk, there is no confusion.
1) There is an XML v 1.0 Recommendation. Can we all agree that at the
very lowest, bone-head, most fundamental level, an implementation must
conform to this syntax if it is to be considered XML? (boy do i hope
so-- or just kill me now because i've been wasting a lot of time on a
2) BizTalk does not conform to that recommendation.
3) Ooops! It failed the first test.
end of story.
OK apart from the fact that the site author did not made extensive tests
with different browsers. Where biztalk do not not conform to XML? I did some
homework ( no preconceived ideas just curiosity) on their spec. And found
a) the first document talks about XML document structure. They state that
the format is XML and talk about some more specific tags like "route" and
"body" and how a e-commerce document should be structured. _But_ they say
that the document should follow W3C XML specs. And say that they use
XML_data until W3C adopts a formal schema recommendation.
So, Where this document failed the test exactly, please be more specific. (I
am not arguing just trying to find waht is not conforming to XML W3C
b) the second document talk about some more tags and also say that the
document should be XML compliant as defined in the W3C recommendations (they
call it "standard").
So Lisa where Biztalk do not conform to XML? please be more explicit or tell
us more if you know more than we do.
Didier PH Martin
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)