Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com]
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> 1. We don't need a lot of implementations of XML Schema.
>Although it is certainly good to have some healthy competition, and for
>developers to have some choice.
Agree but need and nice to have are different. The set of IDEs
and toolsets that make a difference to the commercial developer
isn't that large and will shake out further in accordance with
market forces. The issue of incompatibility is like going to
the races with lead in the track shoes.
>> This is a tool vendor survival issue. No one thrives on being
>> incompatible. The users can push as hard as they want but
>> the fastest fix will come if the Altovas of the world test
>> their implementations in concert with the MSXMLs of the world
>> and get it right fast. I should think this would become an
>> immediate concern of the WSIO.
>I agree. All of the web service toolkits rely upon XML Schema. If
>implementations don't agree, web services won't work.
Or at least not interoperably. If the various groups don't converge,
they throw the market momentum to MS and it isn't like they need the
help at this point. Those who want to play in the web services
market must provide compatible, compliant XML Schema implementations.
They must decide what that means. We can't decide for them.
>Developers are in control of their own implementations (which is the way it
>should be), while interoperability is still achieved because internally
>their implementations are interpreting and supporting the schemas in the
That's the idea.