XInclude.NET on Microsoft Downloads site

| 4 Comments | 3 TrackBacks

Funny thing happened with XInclude.NET 1.2 release. Somehow it appeared on Microsoft Downloads and the "mindless link propagation" has started - Mike Gunderloy in "The Daily Grind 350" has called it "XInclude.NET 1.2 - Microsoft implementation of the November 2003 working draft of XInclude.", James Avery forwarded it in the ".NET Nightly 150" as "XInclude.NET 1.2 - Microsoft's implementation of XInclude. (The old spec, not the new one)".

I think it should be stated clearly to avoid further confusions - XInclude.NET isn't "Microsoft's implementation". It's open source project, hosted on Gotdotnet Workspaces. Its homepage is and everybody invited to join the development. I mean nothing, just wanted to clear things for those how consider it important.

I'm not aware of XInclude implementation from Microsoft yet (as XInclude spec itself is still work in process). I'm sure they will ship it once W3C promotes XInclude to the Recommendatin stage, but for a while you can use XInclude.NET, which isn't bad one. I'm currently updating it to the latest Candidate Recommendation as I was talking ablout. And my article about XInclude and XInclude.NET should be published at MSDN XML DevCenter soon. So stay tuned - subscribe to MSDN XML DevCenter RSS feed.

Keeping your web site design in mind from the beginning can help your web designer plan along with you to determine your web site design as it evolves into the final web page design you'll be sticking with.

3 TrackBacks

TrackBack URL:

TITLE: .NET Nightly Correction URL: IP: BLOG NAME: .Avery Blog DATE: 04/18/2004 09:54:59 PM Read More

TITLE: The Daily Grind 352 URL: IP: BLOG NAME: RoudyBob.NET DATE: 04/20/2004 03:01:10 PM Read More

TITLE: The Daily Grind 352 URL: IP: BLOG NAME: RoudyBob.NET DATE: 04/26/2004 03:57:09 PM Read More


Yeah, now it sounds great.
Thanks for putting it onto Downloads!

I've updated the description on the download page. This propagate out to our downlaod servers in a few hours.

Sorry for the confusion.

This is my fault. I should have clearly stated that the download was related to your article but since your article isn't published yet I couldn't provide a URL. Next time I'll simply put the title of the article in there as well.

Thanks for the clarification - I'll be running a correction tomorrow. The interesting thing about this particular download, though (and the reason I got fooled) is that someone slapped a standard Microsoft download license on it when they repacked it for the Microsoft Downloads site. Based on a quick reading, this license appears to conflict with the project's actual license, so Microsoft would seem to be technically in violation of the license in the way that they're making the code available.

Leave a comment