Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:23:27 -0400
I used the extensions and while it would have been possible not to of, the
extensions were natural and made the coding easier to implement and
I feel very strongly that when a project (as these did) call for a _platform
specific_ product that platform specific features should always be
considered and used if they add even the most slight benefit, to deprive the
product of these benefits would be unethical in such a situation. (The rest
of the time support standards and cross platform development of course.)
From: "Richard Conn" <[log in to unmask]>
> Another question: did you use the extensions? Did they add value over
> the standard or were they "trivial"?
> Richard Conn, Principal Investigator
> Reuse Tapestry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David Botton
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 10:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Leveraging MicroSoft's Marketing
> Sorry, but I have already written a few large applications using MSXML.
> it has many "additions" to the standard.
> If you look in MSDN you will see there is a little '*' next to all the MS
> specific additions in the MSXML interfaces.
> David Botton
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Conn" <[log in to unmask]>
> > The tune at this year's Tech-Ed 2000 conference was
> > different,
> > with XML 1.0, an open standard created by the World Wide Web Consortium,
> > backed heavily, and there is no Microsoft variant this time that I can
> > Even the MSDN Library entries on XML contain links to the W3C sites for
> > detail.
> > Built into Windows 2000, Windows CE, Windows Millenium, and what looks
> > the
> > rest of the Windows 2000 spinoffs is MSXML, a parser for W3C XML which
> > always
> > be available to any application that wants it.
> > So, another view of the issue pertaining to Microsoft.