This is the mail archive of the xsl-list@mulberrytech.com mailing list .


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re: Microsoft XML


>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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]