RE: [xml-dev] Wikipedia on XML

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

That's the double edged sword of the minimum victories.  In the beginning,
it helped to create a content environment that *enough* could build that we
had global agreements on a scale we'd never had.  Microsoft et al bought in
and that created a stable system.  Then it became a boat anchor.

It was well worth it but it would have been nice to have done outside of
Internet Time such that the insane competition was relaxed in favor of more
experiments.   As I said then, the HTML browser would become kudzu and it
did.

IMO, (and I really spend little time on this side of the fence these days),
Unity is exciting because of the potential for servers at the edges.  It
might disrupt some server farm vendor plans for domination, but it could
reintroduce innovation to the web.

len

From: Ian Graham [mailto:ian.graham@utoronto.ca] 
 
Michael Kay wrote:
>  
> So long as HTML is just a document format it will always suffer this
> problem: the browser is a bottleneck for innovation, and nothing happens
> until you can get the owners of the browsers to agree to make it happen.
> That's a profoundly undesirable state of affairs.
>   
If the browser is the bottleneck, why doesn't someone just 'make it 
happen' on one of the many open source browser platforms?  Would the 
Mozilla foundation really complain if some group decided to dive in and 
implement more robust XML technologies in gecko?