[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thursday 19 December 2002 01:36, Mike Champion wrote:
> there. The Borg may be evil, but they listen to their developer
> customers, and this is clearly the kind of thing that an ordinary mortal,
> non-XML geek would want the default behavior to be with the kind of XML
> that they are being asked to work with.
Whatever happened to being strict in what you produced and lenient in what
you accepted?
As it stands, things that are legitimately called XML will be rejected by
.net XML stuff in many cases, right?
Maybe XML 1.2 or 2.0 might ditch entities and DTDs, in which case a parser
that rejects such things as errors would be justified (as long as it didn't
claim to be backwards compatible though)...
But if something that claims to read a standard data format only accepts a
subset - it should say so clearly on the box. It's not an XML parser, it's an
XML-lite parser; it can only parse XML-lite, not arbitrary XML.
> Whatever ... it's not ME you have to convince ... it's all those millions
> of VisualBasic programmers out there and the people that make tools for
> them. For some odd reason, MS seems to be catering to their opinions
> rather than those of the hardcore XML developers. I guess my bottom line
> here is that I wish the keepers of XML had listened to the whining of the
> sml-dev'ers a couple of years ago and provided a standards-based solution
> to a real problem, rather than leaving vendors such a strong incentive to
> address the problem in a proprietary way.
I agree that XML is too complex, and that MS are indeed just trying to
provide what their customers want - they're not being evil here, really, it's
just that they happen to be breaking XML which is a shame :-)
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
