[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:15:35 -0800, Doug Ransom <Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> employs.
These are not "SOAP parsers" but "XML parsers". That should end this paltry
justification.
--
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
nk14.html
|
