Lotsa laughs

[Lisa Rein]

Didier PH Martin wrote:
> 
> More and more I am getting confused by the word "standard":

<elaboration snipped>

Ah yes but in the case of BizTalk, there is no confusion.  

1) There is an XML v 1.0 Recommendation.  Can we all agree that at the
very lowest, bone-head, most fundamental level, an implementation must
conform to this syntax if it is to be considered XML? (boy do i hope
so-- or just kill me now because i've been wasting a lot of time on a
mirage...)

2) BizTalk does not conform to that recommendation.

3) Ooops!  It failed the first test.

end of story.

It's like saying - hey we'd like to speak english, but we've got this
alphabet that's just a little bit different (although we're not going to
document exactly how different) -- hey we've got all these other people
using it that don't understand the alphabet's different, and if we get
enough of them using it quickly enough, we hope that you all will just
go ahead and change the alphabet  mmmm--ok?)

It's a cheap shot from Microsoft, and I don't understand why, because I
know that they have perfectly capable XML people there that know how to
do things the right way, that in fact have been trying to do things the
right way, and apparently there has been some kind of decision from "up
top" to take this inferior, really embarrassing approach anyway, and
that is unfortunate :-)

lisa



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)