• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
• Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:11:36 -0800

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 16:04 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: 
> useful outside of the web browser, that would still be a success. At
> this point I have no expectations that XML will be used directly in
> the browser. That ship has sailed. (though I do feel compelled to note
> that XML failed on the web not because XML was the wrong answer. XML
> on the Web failed due to misfeasance by both browser vendors and the
> W3C.)

Very similar arguments were made 15 years ago when the XML efforts were
underway. "The SGML ship has sailed." That wasn't a good reason to
ignore the issue then, and it isn't now.

In addition, as I've already pointed out, browsers support all the
behaviors I've described, and XML already has -some- support in
virtually every browser. This is low-hanging fruit.

--->Ben

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Where is XML going
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Where is XML going
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: Where is XML going
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Where is XML going
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Where is XML going
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>