Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:15:35 -0800, Doug Ransom <Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com>
> > To load any valid XML 1.0 document, you have to go out of your way. Its
> > not super-hard, but many developers are not going to realize this and not
> > test with documents with entity references. Their products will tend not
> > to fail until they hit the field. As a result, people will be loathe to
> > include entity references in their documents knowing most .net programs
> > are not designed for XML 1.0, but a subset of XML 1.0 that exludes entity
> > references.
> [Wondering what Microsoft put the in beer at XML 2002 last week ... I can't
> believe I'm arguing on the side of the Borg twice in one week ;-) ]
> This seems perfectly sensible to me. It's a way for vendors to say "we
> support the standards as written, but we encourage our customers to use the
> profiles that avoid the ratholes ."
What the blazes?
So what is the merest point of standards, if any party can just ignore a
standard as it pleases?
It must have been *very* strange stuff that whoever put in the beer. I don't
think I've even heard such a ludicrous viewpoint from a Microsoft rep.
> Also, I'm sure it is no coincidence
> that .NET's XML tools appear to be focused on the subset of XML that SOAP
These are not "SOAP parsers" but "XML parsers". That should end this paltry
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
A Python & XML Companion - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/11/py-xml.html
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
MusicBrainz metadata - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi