[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
cpgray@library.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Gray) writes:
>Everybody seems to be missing that the article is specifically about
>Microsoft's plans to use XML to guaranty simultaneous distributability
>and security of Office documents. His main point was that this makes
>sense for Microsoft at a marketing level but not at a technological
>level, and that because of this, it is only a threat to Open Source if
>Open Source makes the mistake of following Microsoft in this direction.
>
>He explicitly plays down Open Source fears and eschews cheap MS bashing
>(although he summarizes it nicely).
Fair enough - I'm just concerned that the author doesn't have enough of
a grasp on how XML fits or doesn't fit into his story to make it
coherent.
I noted that I agree with him that Microsoft's "XML as Web-programming
language" story is ridiculous, but I wish he'd taken a close look at the
XML that the Office applications really generate rather than a
"hypothetical Microsoft License Verification Markup language".
I agree that the sky isn't falling - I just don't trust this particular
forecaster's reasoning. It seems to be based on a lot of things
Microsoft might do rather than an analysis of what they're actually
doing now.
I'm not comfortable with the article as a whole as a result.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
