Mike,
I believe the action item I took was to test msXML with respect to its XML
Schema conformance. I haven't started on that but my tardiness is unrelated
to the issue you raise.
It's important that we make a rational choice when placing this parser on
our priority list, deciding how much weight we want to give its feature set
in our guidelines. Am I correct in thinking you'd like msXML to be
relatively high in the list?
thanx,
doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Rawlins" <>
To: "UBL Naming and Design Rules" <>
Sent: Thursday, 08 November 2001 17:32
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] MSXML and Parser List
I saw in the minutes that Doug took an action item to add MSXML to the
parser list. Since we are targeting SMEs, and since (like it or not) a
vast majority of them are on MS platforms and may not try to find (or be
given) a different parser, it seems to me that if only for marketing
reasons that we must add MSXML to the list.
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
