[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:33:11 -0800, Doug Ransom <Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
> >
> >
> >> So what is the merest point of standards, if any party can just ignore a
> >> standard as it pleases?
>
> I don't claim any knowledge of the MS XMLReader thingie ... if it is
> *violating* the standard (e.g. allowing nulls) I would not accept that. My
> dim recollection from previous flamefests is that that was an acknowledged
> bug. I thought we were discussing its default behavior that assumes that a
> SOAP-like subset of XML is being used, and one must set some flags to have
> it properly parse the full set of XML 1.0 constructs.
>
> I'm making the point I've been making for about 3 years now -- "Common XML
> core" aka "the subset of XML supported by SOAP" is a more reliable
> foundation for comprehensibility and interoperability than the whole spec.
Frankly, I find this idea so cracked that I won't even bother spending much
time beating it down.
I'll just make this one point before I close. You say you think that external
entities aren't worth supporting, so it's OK if Microsoft or any vendor does
not support them in *XML* tools (not SOAP tools).
Some people think that mixed content is not worth supporting. Is it OK for
some vendors to then leave that out?
Some people think that Unicode is not worth supporting. Is it OK for some
vendors to leave that out?
Some people think that attributes are not worth supporting. Is it OK for
some vendors to leave them out?
Some people think that DTDs aren't worth supporting.
Some people thain that non-ASCII tag names aren't worth supporting.
Some people think that significant white space isn't worth supporting.
Is it OK for some vendors to leave these things out out?
And so when all the various vendors have indulged these preferences in their
tools, and there is pretty much no chance that XML from one source can be used
in another toolkit, will your ideal of standardization have been reached?
As for the particular issue at hand, is someone from Microsoft going to point
out to us that this is a bug that is going to be mended, or an oversight that
is to be remedied? Or that the original poster is just plain wrong? I think
Microsoft is very badly discredited (at least in this forum) by Mike
Champion's "defense" right now, and I do suggest they publically disavow such
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-think14.html
|
