Re: Lotsa laughs
First of all, I really do not mean to prolong this thread -- in my opinion we've all wasted too much time and energy on what amounts to nothing more than marketing banter as it is. But alas, I am the current culprit for keeping this going with my comment about XML version 1.0 non-compliance. And at this point, after the time and energy that this response has taken me, I really would like to know if my technical arguments hold up to you expert-types :-) so here I go: --in summary, Didier PH Martin asked me: What did i mean when i said that BizTalk schemas do not conform to the XML v. 1.0 Recommendation? (citing some examples from the BizTalk site)-- As far as your references to specifics on the BizTalk site go, I am still unable to get to those files without using IE5 - which I will get to eventually I suppose when I build up enough microsoft site-specific tasks to do so (how i've been handling the MS site for some time now since it seems the company has decided to require its own browser for a readible version of its site's content). But let's just say for the sake of argument that the examples on the site were well-formed XML -- my question is this: Just because the DOCUMENT examples they show are well-formed XML, isn't it the SCHEMAS that would be validating those documents that would be "breaking" the current implementations? It was my understanding that, at this time, any schema syntax-based validation-mechanism, by definition, does not conform to the XML v. 1.0 Recommendation. Is this not true? Said another way: Since a currently-implemented, XML v. 1.0-compliant validating parser would not be able to use a BizTalk schema to validate documents (since BizTalk schemas use syntax that is not specified in the version 1.0 Recommendation), wouldn't such an existing XML v. 1.0-compliant parser implementation "break" as a result, unless its creators had also implemented whatever additional, non-standard (and therefore proprietary) software that BizTalk requires? Wouldn't a more "compliant" BizTalk strategy be to have BizTalk using DTDs for now, which could then upgraded to schemas (when everyone else upgrades to schemas) as soon as a proper XML Schema Recommendation becomes available. That way, developers wouldn't have to choose one schema syntax over another (and at the expense of being incompatible with everything else) because the schema syntaxes would all be compatible - with each other AND early implementations that used the BizTalk DTDs for validation. Also, on a less technical, more practical note: Why would anyone want to put time into using the BizTalk schemas if they know are going to just have to redo them again when Microsoft, in good faith, changes the BizTalk schemas over to the W3C's Schema syntax? Or the reverse of that would be - why would a microsoft-centric developer want to ever bbother changing over to the proper W3C syntax if they know that Microsoft will continue to build support for the original proprietary syntax into their products in order to keep them all backwards-compatible with the early implementations? (something MS swears by) Why doesn't MS use the closest thing it can to the W3C Schema syntax for now, if it can't wait --rather than an undefined mishmash of two W3C member submissions and one unfinished white paper from almost year ago? BizTalk isn't due out till third quarter 99 -- how perfect, neither is the XML Schema Proposed Recommendation -- how about developing the BizTalk schemas in conjunction with the Schema Working Group at the W3C so they are sure to match?! Hey! THERE's an idea! That's really what my peeve is with this whole situation. Microsoft is in the W3C -- it has people on the schema working group -- why continue to develop BizTalk behind closed doors? Sorry, again, for the long-winded response, but as you can see, I still have trouble expressing my thoughts on some of these more technical issues without over-articulating a bit... thanks for putting up with me :-), lisa xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... 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@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format