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

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

There is a problem of trying to shoehorn all of the 
systems research out there into one system.  We 
do have coupling problems that lead to incoherence 
in multi-vendor and open systems acquisitions. 

One has to look at use cases, determine criticality, and choose 
a system that meets the requirements.  Picking XML is easy.  
Choosing among the overlapping application languages is 
harder.  That is a buy oriented problem.  The decision of 
which language to implement is made harder by the overlaps 
in the core specifications and the hidden assumptions, 
the most famous being, what does a namespace URI point to 
if anything?  Specs churn, then the tools churn, and 
we never close on a working model.  We stay in experimental 
mode and the results are hard to come by.  For that reason, 
we have a virtual one-browser system, and a monopoly that 
while criticized widely, is doing a credible and necessary job.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@webgeek.com]


>From: <mailto:tnutman@softquad.com>Tim Nutman
>
>How many research, standards bodies, commercial and home "users" were 
>involved
>in the creation of the HTML specifications? How does that number compare 
>to today
>and the number of those involved in the creation of XML and XML-"thingy" 
>specifications
>and technologies.

Apples and oranges. HTML was a single, non-extensible (at least by 
definition) document. XML by design is a framework for other development 
efforts. There should be no surprise that more people are involved in 
creating XML specs -- that's what they're supposed to do.