criticism of MSXML (was Re: asp assistance)

> Come on - that's a bit rough, don't you think? Since when is a software vendor
> under any obligation to mention competitive products on their website?

I didn't say they were under obligation. It was a suggestion. I am trying
to point out that Joshua has a bit of nerve, being sarcastic about Mike
Kay's anti-MS attitude on the list and insinuating that users of Saxon and
XT made a bad choice.

These statements alone are not terribly inflammatory, but in the big
picture it seems that the situation could have been less irksome for all
involved, if there weren't scads of IE5 users showing up here and on
comp.text.xml, irritating the old hats and with questions about Not-XPath,
Not-XSLT, version 0.02 pre-alpha.

If anyone has the power to effect some positive change with regard to this
situation, it is the world's largest software company. I proposed a couple
of relatively small steps they could take, making some changes to their
web site, that would help address the root of the problem, which is, in my
opinion, the continued distribution and promotion of MSXML 2.0, with
precious little information provided to its users about its obsolescence
with regard to what XSL has become, and how well they would do to upgrade,
if they're intending to use the product.

   - Mike
____________________________________________________________________
Mike J. Brown, software engineer at         My XML/XSL resources:
webb.net in Denver, Colorado, USA           http://www.skew.org/xml/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list