> What's the difference between Microsoft Core Services having an > implementation of XML tools that are subject to great misuse and > Security issues with XML? If you can't use XML without a risk of > garnering little trojans or implementing some zero day flaw, what's the > practical difference.
Well, there's a big difference, because not all products use the XML parsers that have had security issues. My product doesn't, for example. XML is perfectly safe to use in that case. > It's also hard to see how MS is actually going to do well with Word when > it can't support Custom XML. In fact it might indeed be ironic if Word > competitors could still deal with Custom XML while MS cannot. >From what I gather from the articles, they're not talking about the XML that >defines the document. They're talking about a rather specific form of >user-created XML that's used to implement forms and such. If that's right, I don't see how it would have a huge effect even if it stands (I've never even heard of this feature). I could be reading it wrong, but that's what I got from it. It's difficult to understand how anyone would have a patent on the use of XML just to store documents, since XML is an open standard, and that is clearly one of its purposes. If it was just "You can't use XML to store documents", why weren't PowerPoint and Excel included? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
