I understand where you are coming from, Erik. I just think it would be a trifle for them to determine whether VFP should be included on samples and articles. It's a disservice not to because it implies that VFP cannot participate in these things. We know better, but the vast majority of regular Fox folks do not necessarily.

See my followup post to this one :-)



>>Custom tools for viewing XML data can be written in the Visual Basic® development system, Java, and C++.
>>
>>Now, excuse me for being a pinhead, but isn't virtually all MSXML.DLL functionality available from Visual FoxPro? I see that Rick Strahl wrote some XML conversion stuff that appears to expose the DOM pretty well.
>
>ALL of of the XMLDOM object's functionality is available from VFP- it's just another COM object.
>
>And you don't really need the DOM object to build XML, but you pretty much do need it for parsing. As far as building, VFP will wipe the floor with VB as far as performance and native functionality goes, and it will even (from what I understand) hold its own with C++.
>
>>What am I missing? Should I send a nastygram to Dr. GUI at MSDN about this apparent oversight?
>
>I wouldn't call it an oversight. Dr GUI was simply trying to appeal to the most likely readers of the article (the people who already use VB VC++, etc) by telling them that they can use their own tool to work with XML. I'm sure that Dr. GUI is aware that you can use VFP for this, but he probably (like most other VS users) doesn't care.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I hate that VFP is omitted from places like this, but I do understand why it happens, and in cases like this, I can't really blame the author. He's not there to make sure each language gets equal coverage, he's there to appeal to the majority of developers.