Fredrik that's one of many reasons we did the BDG. I'm curious if you plan
to work with us on that? That's a serious question -- I asked Microsoft for
their support, I am now asking for your support. Our customers and
shareholders have been very very patient with us while we took this
excursion into interop-land. If you'd like to propose an alternative to BDG,
please do, but do it soon, we want to get on with delivering results from
this process.

Now I'll quote Claude Bullard [1]: "Thou shalt not deploy anything that has
not been deployed before you deploy except if said deployment shall slow the
deployment of the fastest among you."

Dave

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg01013.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@...>
To: "soapbuilders" <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:37 AM
Subject: [soapbuilders] how many schema versions do we need?


> to make life a bit easier for non-WSDL clients, how about limiting
> the number of Schema versions used by SOAP implementations?
>
> from what I can tell, the ILAB servers uses the following
>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema (as per the current 1.1 spec)
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema (microsoft .net)
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema (most recent schema)
>
> I can live with two versions (soap 1.1 and latest), but having to
> support every intermediate schema version is starting to get on
> my nerves...
>
> as far as I can tell, the .NET stack is the only one using the 2000/10
> edition. can this be fixed? my life would be so much easier ;-)
>
> Cheers /F
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>