xml-dev - Re: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?

Re: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:03:15 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qT1bfTD6l02GtM5N3eC8I0NisLPHOIs1BSQjgLE+bC4qvHD/9RAfZyrDyi7atp/AZzoTCwIPCjT44Wfyh8PUOi2Id2acw3yVTi8EhSxyjqSkMjVM3bEr3Zumo+2DiN+D/P00hL49vhQ7saUYhswoTyna+KAY7+crpEWpQ+Q5DbQ=
In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c0506020856b537b50@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FC0@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com> <e3a5cb2c0506020856b537b50@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>

On 6/2/05, Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's Microsoft's "tactic" in opposing
> binary XML standardization ... and XML 1.1, XSD 1.1, use case-specific
> profiles of XSD, etc.

Ooops ... NON use-case specific profiles of XSD.   People needing
things such as object-object serialization are welcome to profile XSD
for their needs, but once again trying to find a One Size Fits All
alternative causes more harm than good.
>

References:
- RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
  - From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
  - From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
Next by Date: RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
Next by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread