• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:14:24 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <130.1fcf0170.2bf4db0c@a...>
• References: <130.1fcf0170.2bf4db0c@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:
> http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0513.murphy.html

Bah.  Reverse-engineering XML is a heckuva lot easier than 
reverse-engineering the current MSWord, etc., formats.  And by 
definition then, XSLT can be made to clean it up however you want.

My concern about the MSFT adoption of XML -- and where I see "danger" 
(although that's a fairly overwrought term) -- is that everything is 
based on the Infoset.  There's no standard API (unlike DOM), and no 
standard data format (unlike any standardized programming language). 
While there are valid architectural reasons for working this way, I'm 
sure it hasn't escaped the notice of some in Redmond that this lets them 
have their cake and eat it too.

Perhaps it's time to ask for a new Infoset WG, with the aim of moving 
from abstract toward interoperable?  Like an ASN.1 basis, for example...
	/r$


-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology         http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway    http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html

• References:
  • One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: RE: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• Next by Date: Re: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• Previous by thread: RE: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• Next by thread: Is MSXML API is complete
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread