Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Liam Quin <liam@w...> wrote: > But the fairy dust has scattered, the hype has moved on, and few > organizations today would want to pay money to participate in > XML 2.0 work, I fear, even if we could get consensus on what such > a beast should look like. [expletive deleted] consensus. [expletive deleted] organizations that pay to play. The only way XML 2.0 could ever work is is if a few smart, like-minded individuals get together and build something useful. If it's a noticeable improvement on existing technology that offers significant practical benefits to real customers (as opposed to the completely theoretical benefits of XML 1.1) the big companies can play catch up later, just like they did with JSON; just like they did with XML 1.0. Just like they're doing now with HTML 5. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead That said, I'm not sure we could make XML 2.0 better enough to justify the cost of switching. XML 1.0 is still pretty damn good. 5% better wouldn't do it. It really needs to be infinitely better: i.e. move some projects that are practically impossible today into the realm of the plausible. After 12 years, and listening to a lot of good ideas from multiple folks, I think I know how to make XML 50% better, maybe even 100% better; but I'm not sure I know how to make it infinitely better. But one of these days someone will figure out how to. I suspect it won't be the W3C that does though. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@i...
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
