Thanks for your reply to my post. Your quote from Oscar Wilde is well received. However, I am disinclined to believe that Oscar Wilde never hurt anyone’s feelings unintentionally – unless, of course, he never talked to anyone else. Even then, the most diplomatic of us can’t avoid hurting another person’s feelings.

My intent was not to criticise your grasp of the English language, but to recommend that you make use of a proofer prior to publishing an article. Even those of us whose first language is English must do the same. I am weary of reading articles where it is clear that the author is the only one who proofed the article prior to publishing. Before I put anything in print, I have made it a practice to have someone else look it over to see if it makes sense and there are no grammatical issues.

I understand the fact that you were writing this article for a SQL Server publication, which therefore, prompted you to focus primarily upon storing data in SQL Server. My comments regarding Access had to do with the following comments in your article:

“Another drawback is unavailability of reports like in Access. This is because main aim of InfoPath is to collect data and store them.

But I think Microsoft will develop these solutions in future release to keep and grow the users of of InfoPath.”

And

“InfoPath, the new member of the Office family has many advantages over its counter part, Access. Even though it is not popular as such, slowly it is catching up.”

Your qualifier that a primary aim of InfoPath is to collect data and provide [minimal] storage of such data is accurate. I simply don’t believe that MS has any intention of InfoPath ‘catching up’ (to use your words) with Access in the sense that it will ever replace Access as a database tool. That was my entire point.