Re: Second International Symposium on Invisible XML

> talk about the fabulous technologies and initiatives, whatever names their creators give them.

The invisible markup technology we have today is iXML, no? I was able to use CoffeePot a couple of years ago on a project and deliver something.

The selling points, the pitch, for the technology reduce to "power to solve problems"; all of the specific cases reduce to some flavour of legibility ("what exactly is in there?"). Especially when we can present examples of a robust solution, I think we do ourselves a disservice by supposing people care more about how the problem gets solved than they do about having a working solution.

Graydon, who is fairly sure XML has friends as well as those folks who are repulsed by it

On Wed, Aug 19, 2026, at 10:53, Wendell Piez wrote:
> Hello again Naming Committee,
> 
> "iXML and Beyond" addresses my concern about limiting the scope of interest implicitly in the name. But I am not sure (on balance) this is better than something more like the present title. "International Symposium on Invisible Markup 2076". I know the iXML in that title is invisible to the unaided eye.
> 
> But it is not about hiding it, really, and I would feel better if people stopped saying that. It is about what is emphasized.
> 
> I fully understand why we have sensitivities around the "XML" acronym: I have my own. But I don't think there is a way around them. Putting 'XML' or 'iXML' defiantly into the title doesn't make anyone feel better about anything: it only brings unnecessary debates to the forefront. I would rather stop fighting those old battles, and talk about the fabulous technologies and initiatives, whatever names their creators give them.
> 
> Thanks again for reading,
> Wendell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 9:54 AM Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 at 14:42, Bethan Tovey-Walsh
>> <bytheway@linguacelta.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > As Sheila and I have both ailready said, discoverability and name recognition are worth considering, so I would strongly prefer that IXML be somewhere in the subtitle, not just XML.
>> 
>> Anyone old enough may recall the strength of feeling when the 'X' of
>> xml was discussed?  It was the 'catch'' ,
>> the name recognition feature that caused heads to raise.
>> 
>> Perhaps iXML in whatever case just may be the catch here?
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Pawson
>> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
>> Docbook FAQ.
> 
> 
> --
> ...Wendell Piez... ...wendellpiez.com...
> ...pellucidliterature.org... ...raventracks.org...
> ... xproc.zone... ...github.com/wendellpiez...