[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Mike,
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 06:16, Mike Champion wrote:
> I'm quite they would not wish to be tarnished by the argument presented
> here :-) I'm not defending MS, I'm latching onto their pragmatic
> accomodation to some real problems in XML interop to illustrate points that
> I've been trying to make on this list for years. I find it very very
> interesting that people tend to gravitate to the same subset of XML1.x when
> they have to simultaneously optimize interoperability,
> footprint/reliability, and performance -- and that's basically the subset
> used by SOAP (all versions, AFAIK), and is awfully close to
> http://www.simonstl.com/articles/cxmlspec.txt.
To quote John Cowan [1], the golden rule for interoperability is "Be liberal
in what you accept, conservative in what you send" and I had always understood
Common XML as a set of conservative rules to be used for what you send
if you want to avoid any interoperability trouble.
Using it the other way round to be conservative in what you accept would
on the contrary bring you a lot of troubles would be a disaster IMO !
[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200210/msg01086.html
Eric
--
Curious about Relax NG? My book in progress is waiting for your review!
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
