• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:03:15 -0700
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qT1bfTD6l02GtM5N3eC8I0NisLPHOIs1BSQjgLE+bC4qvHD/9RAfZyrDyi7atp/AZzoTCwIPCjT44Wfyh8PUOi2Id2acw3yVTi8EhSxyjqSkMjVM3bEr3Zumo+2DiN+D/P00hL49vhQ7saUYhswoTyna+KAY7+crpEWpQ+Q5DbQ=
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c0506020856b537b50@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FC0@h...> <e3a5cb2c0506020856b537b50@m...>
• Reply-to: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

On 6/2/05, Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> wrote:
> That's Microsoft's "tactic" in opposing
> binary XML standardization ... and XML 1.1, XSD 1.1, use case-specific
> profiles of XSD, etc.

Ooops ... NON use-case specific profiles of XSD.   People needing
things such as object-object serialization are welcome to profile XSD
for their needs, but once again trying to find a One Size Fits All
alternative causes more harm than good.
>

• References:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread