Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
At 11:56 AM 1/14/00 +0900, Jun Fujisawa wrote: >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". My favorite moment comes near the end, where they say: >Do you always pad parameter entities with whitespace or only when >they are not inside literals? We say yes. Er, yes to what? My main gripe about the MS parser is its bizarre rules for namespace support, demanding #FIXED declarations for namespace attributes. (We've been around this one a few times, and I haven't come anywhere near to convinced by the MS arguments.) I've also got a lot of complaints about its integration with IE 5.0 (though some of those have been fixed with IE 5.01), but most of those aren't the parser per se. I'd love to see another round of comment on the comments, however. It seems like there are enough people around with a deep understanding of the conformance tests (i.e., the people who built them) to report on the four 'hotly contested differences' listed. Perhaps the <![CDATA[ ]]> (they missed a bracket) question should be added to my 'great controversies' list... Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com 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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
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