n, not to detract from your statement, but I think there is a better way to describe Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards knows nothing about XML.
A few things that make no sense - XML Schema define an XML grammar. XML itself is a data format. CSS or XSLT describe the presentation of XML data. Why would an XML doc ever embed presentation information? It's not logical and is contrary to the semantic definition of XML.
Vendor lockin? Certainly Office 2k3 won't be any more lockin-able (yep, I just invented that word) than any previous version. I for one have designed XML Schema and used Word to author XML docs based on that schema. When word saved the file, surprise, surprise, it saved the XML exactly according to my schema. Any application that can read XML can read my doc. If that's vendor lockin, then I love Linux.
What does "Microsoft's version [of XML]" mean? XML is a grammar. XML isn't a language itself. HTML, XHTML, WordML, MathML, BlogML are all languages defined using XML grammars. A document either is or isn't XML. For the uninformed that talk of extensions, perhaps the should look at the definition of the "X" in XML. It stands for eXtensible. XML is so loose for this purpose - an application that can parse XML and accept XML schema, will be able to parse any XML document irrespective of the XML schema upon which it is based. If your doc is valid, it will parse. If it isn't, it won't. Vendor specific XML makes about as much sense a as vendor specific binary number system.
|