Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> [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.
Not to me. It's a bug in System.Xml.
> 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 ."
I don't think this bug is documented as a feature in System.Xml, but
I'll go back and check this evening.
> 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.
I haven't heard any noises that say the .NET library only supports a
certain subset of XML.
> This subset/profiling issue, and why SOAP uses a
> subset of XML, was a hot topic on the TAG list over the last couple of
> weeks, so people might want to look through the archives to get a sense
> of what the "other side" (whichever side you are on) has to say.
What's interesting to me is why the SOAP community/vendors/wg aren't
pushing to specify a new version of XML (ie, a separate document
from a seperate working group). Or have they?
Bill de hÓra