Microsoft's response to article

David Brownell david-b at
Fri Jan 14 17:27:13 GMT 2000

Jun Fujisawa wrote:
> On MSDN site, I found an article posted which addresses some
> of the issues raised by the David Brownell's review.
> <>

I've got to say my initial reaction was "so, why not just fix
the bugs?".  But then, I know what it's like to be part of an
organization with a lead time of well over a year to fix a bug
in the next OS release.  It's a major downside of bundling.

> The article states that "you will see much better than 87 or
> 88 percent of XML files exchanged between Msxml.dll and
> other parsers actually achieve interoperability".

Depends on whether they use "Microsoft XML extensions", or standard
XML features that aren't supported.  Those all get zero interop.

Those documents with illegal control characters ... zero interop
with any XML processor that conforms to the specification.

Those documents using name characters that MSXML dislikes ... zero
interop with MSXML.  Just like those documents with DTDs that don't
make namespace declarations immutable.

I don't know where that implication came from, that only a max
of 88% of the interchanged XML files will interoperate.  I never
said, or implied, any such thing.

> Any comments?

I'm still comparing that response to the original article, so
I'll have some more comments later.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list