Lists Home |
Date Index |
1/13/2002 5:02:56 PM, "Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI"
> Has XML reached the stage of WAP? I.e. has XML proven
> itself to be so complex when being used for
> real-life applications, that it will die a silent death,
> just like WAP?
One more thing ... I would argue (in 20:20 hindsight) that
WAP is dying because it violates both Moore's Law and
Metcalfe's Law -- it assumed that cellphones would be
severely bandwidth limited for some time to come, and didn't
leverage the installed base of HTTP/HTML infrastructure and
I'll predict a similar fate for other technologies (Curl
comes to mind ...) whose value depends on saving bytes or
cycles and requires one to re-write applications built on
popular technologies with new or proprietary technologies.
"Disruptive technologies" is a buzzword among marketing types
these days, but if you read Christensen's book, the people
being disrupted by small disk drives, small motorcycles,
hydraulics in mechanical excavators, etc. were the producers,
not the consumers. WAP (and Curl) disrupt both producers and
consumers. [Of course, if Curl manages to get distributed
with every browser and WAP put on every cellphone, this
factor becomes less salient ...]
Using XML behind the scenes to integrate applications,
provide a neutral content format that can be translated into
HTML or WML or simply styled with CSS or XSLT, syndicate
content, perform cross-platform RPC, etc. doesn't disrupt the
ultimate consumers, so I don't think that WAP's fate
foretells much about the fate of XML.
Likewise with complexity. The growing complexity of the XML
specs is a problem for the producers of XML tools, but the
ultimate consumers are probably oblivious to whether
"plumbing" under the floor is built using well-formed XML or
"PSVIcally correct" XML. Those that actually use the XML are
probably just using whatever part of the specs that they
understand (note how little of "XML" (broadly defined) that
SOAP depends on). WAP consumers had no such choice.