[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
cpgray@library.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Gray) writes:
>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.
Then it would do well to present itself that way from the start. Murphy
seems to consider Microsoft's perspective on XML cause to ignore the
impact of using XML here. That makes no sense to me.
>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.
Yes, that's X-Files, and it doesn't seem like a remotely plausible
scenario to me. If Murphy was complaining that Microsoft is shifting
from an open XML format to the closed .doc format, I might have sympathy
for it. In the current situation, I find it simply laughable.
Yes, there's lots of MS dreck in these files. No, that dreck doesn't
prohibit you from harvesting (or creating) the things you need. Short
of deliberate obfuscation, it's a lot harder to muck up XML than it was
to muck up HTML.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
