RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sterin, Ilya [mailto:Isterin@ciber.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:52 PM
> To: 'Tom Bradford '; 'Simon St.Laurent '
> Cc: 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org '
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?
> 
> 
> By responsible entity, I hope you don't mean Micro$oft:-)

That's an awfully good point.  As someone else said, "be careful 
what you wish for."  Someday, we may look back on this period as the golden
years of peace and harmony between the Browser Wars and the 
Server Wars.  Shudder.  

I think (probably repeating myself) that we need better terms for: 
a) "XML" as ordinary developers actually use it today
b) "XML" as XML 1.0 + namespaces (the de-facto basis of most W3C specs)
c) "XML" as XML 1.0 + namespaces + schemas + RDF + xml:base + PSVI +
godknowswhat

I doubt if anyone who would bother subscribing to this list thinks that a)
has run its course.  b) is still contentious; for example the XML Protocols
WG has recently debated whether to base SOAP 1.2 on a) or b).  

I'm pretty sure that Simon's rant is against c).  The "W3C" is not a
monolith; some WG's appear to have bought into the c) perspective (Schema
and XQuery, perhaps?) but the one's I know best are committed to a) and
lukewarm about b).  So, before we even *think* about trying to setup some
other "responsible entity" to own "XML", let's see how the "b) vs c)"
struggle sorts itself out within the W3C.  It's quite possible that the c)
stuff will collapse under its own weight and the W3C will take on the
"refactoring" job to clean up the rubble.  It's even remotely possible that
the c) stuff will actually "lead the Web to its full potential," leaving
people like Simon and me to dine on crow.  We shall see ... and in the
meantime, we can do real work with a).

[Usual disclaimer ... not speaking for my employer or any WG foolish enough
to let me hang around]