[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML
Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML From: "Kurt Cagle" <cagle@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:49:06 -0700 |
>I am glad that you pointed out that MSXML parser is a model of >conformance for XML 1.0 and XSLT 1.0. The rest of the things you >mention are neither XML 1.0 nor XSLT 1.0, so are not exactly relevant to >the uninformed comments in the O'Reilly book. >I'm of course aware that there are plenty of other specs besides XML 1.0 >and XSLT 1.0 that people complain about regarding Microsoft's support >(Kerberos would be another), and I am sure there are plenty of people on >other lists who would be happy to debate the merits and demerits of >Microsoft's support in these areas. Of course, just to skew the argument back the other way, I would also argue that Microsoft has long had a history of supporting (or more often promoting their own versions of) those standards that support its own products and not supporting standards that may provide competitive advantages to other companies, even if they facilitate a more uniform set of implementation protocols for the Internet at large. XLink has been a standard for a while now, but, as you point out, Microsoft is working on "an improved version". XLink provides in its own way a critical change to the notion of file systems (as does, as a consequence, XPointer). Both also are standards that require changes not at the client or component level, but at the server level -- an XPointer call that passes an XPath expression can only make sense if the server understands what to do with such an expression. Ironically, Microsoft has a unique duty, one that they all too frequently fail to do. They DO have a monopoly on client systems, and a significant presence on server systems. Whether that monopoly is deserved or not is not an issue that's relevant to this list. What is relevant is that as a monopoly they also are the clock that everyone else sets their watches to. If Microsoft fails to adopt a standard, then the chances that the standard will be adopted by anyone else becomes significantly more limited. they are signatories to the W3C, they are involved in all standards groups in the W3C, and so reasonably, they should provide at least basic level implementations of those specifications that are within the W3C purview that have BECOME recommendations. If they want to promulgate a superior way of doing things as well, that's great -- that's called innovation, and is something that Microsoft claims every time the government threatens to take them to task for stifling it -- but they should as responsible members of the W3C be willing to implement the basic level of support. In some areas, such as in the adoption of SVG on the client or XLink/XPointer on the server, they may actually find it to their competitive advantage to offer these services because it means that they can in fact work more comprehensively with other systems, and people may actually start buying Windows again because it's a solid, robust operating system that lets them interact fully with other systems, not because of threats by the BSA, licensing idiocies or boneheaded de-activation schemes. It also strengthens their position vis-a-vis the W3C; instead of splitting hairs about having this or that compliance, they can actually claim to be in a position to be the best in interoperability, and nip the Linux threat in the bud. Joshua, I'm not sure that you are with Microsoft or are simply acting as an advocate for them, but in the former case (in either case, for that matter) I'd be curious about your comments. -- Kurt Cagle XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML, Joshua Allen | Thread | RE: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML, Julian Reschke |
[xsl] string length, Eric Schenfeld | Date | RE: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML, Joshua Allen |
Month |