Re: Acceptance of XML

Bill Smith wrote:

> By taking an incremental approach to deploying an XML standard, we get the immediate
> benefit of positioning it as the natural evolution of HTML. We should not ignore other
> markets or applications but we should carefully weigh inclusion of SGML features lest we
> shift XML's perceived center of gravity too far from HTML. Over time, the shift can and
> will occur but we should allow XML to evolve just as HTML, HTTP, and other Web standards
> evolve.
> Bill

This is eminently sensible.  But that can be viewed as 
"We already have HTML, why do we need this?".  I don't wish to be 
tendentious, but XML is not the natural evolution of HTML.  HTML is
in a species of DTDs which some of us have created prior to HTML. 
market position notwithstanding, it is not a new technique or
product.  The evolutionary limits of such species prompt efforts such 
as this one.   XML evolves out of the practical experience the members
of this group have with respect to many species of SGML applications. 
This effort 
attempts to create a new model of SGML that will allow these species to 
evolve by improving their shared *genetic heritage* such that it enables 
adaptation to the target environment (the Internet) using the forces
drive that environment (Internet application users and vendors).
XML reduces ecotonal tension by improving the agreements at the

Ok:  so much for metaphors of information ecologies. :-)

But, if one wants so *sell* it as such, (the heir to HTML) I've no
problem with that until it shows up in official project documents.  What
marketeers tell customers 
is somewhat like what we tell a prospect on a first date.  No one
believes it,
but if it leads to a mutually rewarding experience, it is worth the
Fibbing in court is another matter.

len bullard