I can't see why they pushed up the launch of an obviously incomplete and empty
website, except perhaps to spite rival efforts by xml.org that might be
announced tomorrow at XMLOne.
The W3C has indicated it does not want to define specific XML schemas as part
of the XML standards process.
If the industry cannot implement a common set of semantics
across different XML schemas, we can at least define a
consistent syntax for the different schemas being developed. A
consistent syntax will make mapping across schemas
easier, including the conversion of an existing application
supporting one type of BizTalk schema to another type.
So, since they won't certify schema instances, we'll just try to wrest control
of the entire schema-definition-language process?
Their "steering committee" isn't breathtakingly capable, though it represents
huge market cap.
> MSFT publishes its draft version of their biztalk
> XML proposal.  So, is it just another XML/EDI?
> I wanted to check it out, so I go to the biztalk
> site, hit about biztalk framework, voila!
> Just one of the problems of trying to do e-commerce
> over the Internet. Non-standard MSFT Web support. 
>  http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36935,00.html
>  http://www.biztalk.org
>  http://www.biztalk.org/Biztalk Framework Overview Final.htm
> HTTP Error 400
> 400 Bad Request
> Due to malformed syntax, the request could not be understood
> by the server. The client should not repeat the request without
Rohit Khare -- UC Irvine -- 4K Associates -- +1-(626) 806-7574 http://www.ics.uci.edu/~rohit -- http://xent.ics.uci.edu/~FoRK