[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 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.
OK, but the article presents itself as a response to fears raised by Gary
Edwards over what Microsoft "might do". The article's really more about
what comes after Passport and Palladium, than about XML.
Sure it's hard to guess just how serious Microsoft is about trying to
leverage XML in its lock-in strategy, but could it work? The main thing
Murphy seems to envision is Office XML documents supported by so much
piggy-backed technology that only Microsoft would have the resources to
keep it all working smoothly. On one hand, that kind of paranoia seems
like something out of the X-Files; on the other, think of all the Web
sites that are only really viewable with IE in spite of IE compliance with
W3C standards and because of the proliferation of MS added on Web tools
and technologies.
Chris
|
