Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion wrote:
> The vendors aren't going to do anything to reduce interoperability and
> "standards" compliance, and the W3C won't do anything without a very
> large push from the vendors. We're in an odd situation where
> everybody (well, more or less, AFAIK) knows that there is a problem
> but nobody has much of an incentive to do anything about it. It will
> take some external shock -- such as what gasoline prices did to the
> American auto industry in the '70's, or what Microsoft did to IBM in
> the 1980's, or what the Web did to Microsoft's desktop plans in 1995
> -- to shake things up, IMHO.
I think you missed one. I've always considered XML+HTTP a shock to
the middleware market - it's not liked we're hanging out here
talking about Middleware-*. External forces are a bit too pat tho' -
I read the shock as being unable to adapt when competitors introduce
more efficient ways of doing things.
> It's possible that the shock will come from customers who realize that
> the whole XML corpus is massive overkill for their needs and they
> shake things up by favoring the products/projects that have
> anticipated this and offer highly optimized price/performance for the
> core use cases.
Yet, the whole XML corpus is less massive that what came before -
plus a fair bit of that mass is junk DNA from the the likes SGML or
Distributed OO, and can safely be ignored. But if you're saying that
we haven't eliminated as much as waste as we could, I'm inclined to
agree with you. IMHO it's inevitable that costs continue to be
driven down, even where a HTTP+XML baseline is in place. There are a
lot of customers who still think they are paying and have paid too
much to shuttle data about.