• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:41:49 -0800

At 11:41 AM 27/02/01 -0500, David Megginson wrote:

>I think that client-side XML failed simply because it didn't fill a
>big enough real need (HTML 4 is close enough)

I have a problem with your verb tense.  The web is still too slow.
Fatter pipes aren't going to help.  The only way to make it fast
is to do some of the work on the (severely underemployed, these
days) client, and the only way to do that is to send some useful
data there to get chewed on.  So I think client-side XML just
hasn't got going yet.  To say it had failed, it would be 
necessary for it to have been tried. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
    • From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>
  • RE: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Next by Date: Re: The relentless march of abstraction
• Previous by thread: Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
• Next by thread: Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread