RE: Re: Microsoft XML

Good summary.

I'd like to add that MSXML's DOM seems to be quite conformant except for the
lack of some DOM level 2 methods.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kurt Cagle
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:54 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Re: Microsoft XML
>
>
> I'm not a big Microsoft fan -- I've been burned personally too
> many times by
> Microsoft to ever really trust them -- but I am somewhat in agreement with
> Michael here. The MSXML4 parser is VERY compliant with the XML
> standards ...
> but only in those areas where they implement the standards at
> all. They have
> excellent support for XSD (through an albeit strange mechanism,
> but the XSD
> spec says nothing about how validation is performed), their XSLT
> parsers are
> very well written, and in general they've been very good about making sure
> that the XML the standards they do support are current.
>
> MS lacks XML support in a few areas, however:
>
> RDF - No tool that they use works with RDF in any way.
> XLink - XLink is not supported by IE or by the MSXML parser.
> SMIL - They currently use HTML+TIME, though recently they announced that
> they would move to a SMIL architecture in their future products.
> XHTML - While IE6 can read XHTML just fine, it is still just HTML to it.
> CSS - IE6 supports CSS1 to 100%, but so do Mozilla and Opera. It supports
> only a few CSS2 functions, and falls far short of either Opera or
> Mozilla on
> this front.
> SVG - Microsoft currently supports VML (although with poor documentation)
> and has made no plans for an SVG add-on for IE6.  My guess is they're
> waiting to see what happens with the Adobe IE extension, and will
> plan their
> strategies from there.
> DOM - The W3C XML DOM is not supported, though what I'm seeing in
> .NET makes
> me suspect that the final version of the .NET architecture will support
> something that is syntactically close. They do have a good XML DOM, of
> course, it's just not the W3C model.
> MathML - No support.
>
> None of these (with the possible exception of XLink) are show
> stoppers. As a
> frequent SVG developer, I could wish for more support there, and
> as someone
> who frequently moves from JAXP to MS and back a consistent DOM would be a
> nice to have, but I think this sets a standard for Microsoft that
> few other
> companies have met yet either.
>
> -- Kurt Cagle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re:  Re: Microsoft XML
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:10 PM
> > Mark Galbreath wrote:
> >
> > > Admittedly, I am new to XML/XSL; this is from Brett
> > > McLaughlin's "Java and XML," (O'Reilly 2000):
> > >
> > > "The Microsoft parser has been intentionally left out of this list;
> > > from all appearances, Microsoft does not now or in the future
> > > intend to conform to W3C standards.  Instead, Microsoft seems
> > > to be developing their own flavor of XML.  We have seen this
> > > before...be careful if you are forced to use Microsoft's parser" (p.
> > 24).
> >
> > Well, O'Reilly believes in freedom of speech and allows authors to write
> > rubbish like this, provided the technical content is accurate.
> > McLaughlin's book is excellent on his core topics, but like some
> > denizens of this list, he seems to be a knee-jerk Microsoft hater. Hence
> > this ludicrous claim.
> >
> > Michael
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael Beddow   http://www.mbeddow.net/
> > XML and the Humanities page:  http://xml.lexilog.org.uk/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> >
> >
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


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