• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:21:40 -0700

> Anyway, these aren't serious proposals ... just illustrations of how one
> might approach the problem if people thought about what they really need
> before they worried about marketing their shiny new paradigm. THAT's Edd's
> point, IMHO.

And my version of that point:  the paradigm is old,
it's the marketing that's shiny and new!

Where admittedly "use XML to do this" is part of
the marketing, and a part which isn't pure public
relations ... because a lot more people have access
to XML (though not to XML + BrandX Schemas)
and HTTP than ever had meaningful access to any
of the earlier "network services" components.

Is this a case where cutting the price of the technology
(family) will lead to wider adoption?  Or have there been
other reasons why the paradigm has been limited to
use in custom applications, for the past decades?
Stay tuned ...

- Dave

• References:
  • RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to Love daBomb)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
• Next by Date: RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to Love daBomb)
• Previous by thread: RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to Love daBomb)
• Next by thread: RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to Love daBomb)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread