RE: Never-converge-itis (was Re: XML matters for the Web - and th ebrowser)

["Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:45 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: Never-converge-itis (was Re: XML matters for the 
> Web - and
> the browser)
> 
>
> Anyway I were on that panel I would have said "Let's focus on 
> things we can do, we all know how frustrating it is to not be able to do 
> things we can't.

Uhh, I read Simon's comments (and Chuck White's on SVG vs Flash) as saying
they CAN do what they want to do in HTML (and
"CGI/ASP/JSP/ColdFusion/PHP/etc").  They've got their ice cream, they're
eating it in the car, they just don't want to make such a mess doing it. XML
can help them once CSS+SVG+client-side XSLT+standardized glue such as MIME
types and stylesheet links are supported consistently across browsers, in
high-end editing tools, etc.  But they're rather deal with the HTML, etc.
mess than lower their expectations down to the level at which XML can
currently deliver.

Why isn't this happening?  Possible answers: 

a) HTML + FLASH + CGI/ASP/JSP/ColdFusion/PHP/etc "ain't broke, so don't need
fixin'"? 
b) XML has found its niche in Web Services and server-side processing, and
that's where the XML energy is going? 
c) The client-side folks look at "XML" as XML + namespaces + schemas + CSS2
+ XSLT + XSL-FO + XLink + PSVI + godonlyknowswhattomorrow and don't want to
touch it with a 10-foot pole until it settles down?  

I dunno (I'm a server-side geek myself). What do people think?