Talk:CXML

NPOV

There is a lot of hyperbole in this article -- it sounds like a marketing piece. Tone it down, actually describe the protocol and its history, discuss disadvantages, refer to alternatives. And if you're going to mention PunchOut, you're going to have to explain it. For an example of a better protocol description, see FIX protocol or, dare I say, Electronic Data Interchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevegt (talk • contribs)

Uggh. You're right. It is painfully POV. --Habap 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Please Tone it down. A lot of it is indeed hyperbole.

This text is taken from the faq from www.cxml.org

Would be nice to see an example such as http://acs.lbl.gov/~dang/tmp/NetLogger/cxml_002dexample.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.87.226 (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That Example is for "compactXML" This is about "Commerce XML" Which is real XML based, so that example is not relevant. Pinkertonfloyd (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to see a discussion of cXML compared to RosettaNet, standards from GS1 etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.52 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Toned down slightly (who judges "easy"?), and added description of PunchOut from the FAQ jens (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues appear resolved, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 01:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)