Brandon wrote:
> Huh?  What are you talking about?  These discussion boards are not for 
> questioning people's logic for doing stuff -- I can probably name 10 very 
> logical reasons one would do what I'm trying to do.

I was merely curious to know the reason.

But these newsgroups (not "discussion boards") are indeed for
questioning people's logic -- probably half the responses do exactly
that.

> If anyone should be insulted, it's me.  I'm the one that had someone post -- 
> in response to my question -- nothing towards a solution, and only 
> questioning my reasons for wanting to do something.  And frankly, WHY someone 
> on here is doing something is none of anyone else's business, 

Actually, it is, if you want a considered response to your original
question. Don't forget we get a LOT of very weird questions here,
including many from people who have grotesquely misunderstood XML,
HTTP, the Internet, or just Computing. It's not always obvious from
a post that there is a full understanding of the circumstances, and
many of us dislike spending a lot of time on a response only to find
that the original question was based on a complete misapprehension
of the nature of the problem. My company spends a lot of time digging
people out of architectural potholes that they wouldn't have gotten
into if they had asked a few questions in the first place. It's clear
that you are not in that category, but that was not obvious from
your original post.

> but I wanted to 
> more just leave the gentleman's response alone rather than make a post about 
> etiquet.
> 
> Just to start a list of reasons why one would want to do what I'm doing:
[...]

Yep, all of those are perfectly valid reasons. I'm just not convinced
that XML is a suitable encapsulation for the task requirements, as it
wasn't designed to transport data requiring subsequent processing
outside the ambit of XML markup. But that's probably moot for the
current instance.

I'll leave the internals of your original query to the MS experts.

///Peter