Gerhard Rausch wrote:
> As I wrote earlier , we are definitely not in the position  to argue with 
> them about XML. They are running a very big and complex system with many 
> dependencies, 

They're doing something business-critical with broken software, and
they know the software is broken, and they won't replace it?

Do their stockholders know this? Do their employees know? Do their
business partners know? And still trust them?

> so the won't change it 'cos one new manufacturer mislikes their 
> XML implementation.

It's got nothing to do with "like" or "dislike". Whether you like or 
dislike their software is completely irrelevant. Their software is
broken and all you are doing is pointing this out to them. If they are
so stupid as to continue using it, that's *their* problem...for the
moment.

I suggest you just mention, politely, but IN WRITING, that their parser
is not an XML parser, and should be replaced by a real XML parser, and
then forget the matter. Go ahead and do whatever implementation you need
to build the system, make sure you comment and document that you have
had to code around a broken program, make sure it works, and get paid.

Then when the solids hit the fan, you're covered.

There are hundreds of companies relying on software far more broken than
this, and knowing it, and unwilling to change because of corporate
pride or management ignorance. Most of the time they escape because
employees apply bandages and splints to keep the works running. But as
an external contractor, you may be held responsible if there is any
related failure, because they'll be looking for someone to sue. So
just make sure you document your concern. It's highly unlikely it will
ever be needed, but you never know.

///Peter