http://www.biztalk.org/Biztalk%20Framework%20Overview%20Final.htm
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?
Rohit
Their "steering committee" isn't breathtakingly capable, though it represents
huge market cap.
> MSFT publishes its draft version of their biztalk
> XML proposal. [1][2] 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. [1]
>
> Greg
>
> [1] http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36935,00.html
> [2] http://www.biztalk.org
> [3] 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
> modifications.
--Rohit Khare -- UC Irvine -- 4K Associates -- +1-(626) 806-7574 http://www.ics.uci.edu/~rohit -- http://xent.ics.uci.edu/~FoRK