Re: [xsl] Re: Microsoft XML

["Kurt Cagle" <cagle at olywa dot net>]

2) Microsoft hasn't implemented XLink/XPointer yet.  Microsoft has no
plans to change or reinvent either recommendation.

But does it have plans to implement XLink in the first place? The point I
made earlier was that if you wanted to implement an XLink+, I saw no reason
why you shouldn't. I was just bringing up an issue of whether you plan on
supporting such an integral part of the basic XML specification.

3) It is not interesting to talk about Microsoft's "long and sordid"
past, social theory, or every spec that was ever invented.  And it is
off-topic for this list.  There are plenty of other "advocacy" lists
where people pontificate about those things.  Items #1 and #2 above are
facts, and are directly related to the comments in the O'Reilly book.

In other words, its perfectly permissible to talk about where Microsoft is
compliant, but not where its not <grin/>.

-- Kurt Cagle



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