Re: Second International Symposium on Invisible XML

Bethan writes:

>> It only brings unnecessary debates to the forefront.
> If the debates are about whether we want to grow our community by
redefining it for the benefit of people who are hostile to XML, then I
think those debates are absolutely necessary.

Those are not the debates to which I refer.

Also, most of the rest of the post seems to be directed at someone who
wants to disparage, denigrate or detract from iXML. I don't know who that
is, in this conversation.

It is true that my choice of the word "defiant" imputes an intention (to a
title and, I suppose, to those who have chosen it), when all I really have
is an impression. In other words, I am projecting defiance, where there may
be none. Am I the only one in this conversation who is imputing an
intention, when all we really have is words? (I can explain my intention,
what I mean or think I meant, yet I keep saying things that are received in
an entirely different light.)

As to "what satisfies me", you seem to be under the impression I would not
be satisfied with the outcome you recommend, and I have not said that at
all. I am merely defending the contrary point of view, in a balance of multiple
considerations. Call it a 60/40 preference.

Probably even that is a mistake, now, since I have made my impressions
probably clearer than I should have. There is no use being offended because
someone is offended by something I didn't say or didn't mean to say -- and
my feelings (or others' feelings about my supposed feelings) are not what
is at issue. :-) I am only answering because opinions were solicited, I
don't even get to decide!

Cheers-ish, Wendell

(Then Norm writes a message that might be characterized as defiant. Or not!)


On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 12:07 PM Bethan Tovey-Walsh <
bytheway@linguacelta.com> wrote:

> Putting 'XML' or 'iXML' defiantly into the title doesn't make anyone feel
> better about anything:
>
>
> It makes me feel better not to see the work I and my colleagues have done
> on IXML swept into the background in favour of some nebulously-defined
> thing that, so far, barely exists outside IXML.
>
> I have been on the working group that manages the invisible XML spec since
> before v1 was published. This is my first ever experience of contributing
> to any such project, and I'm proud of what we've accomplished. Most of us
> were not working on "invisible markup" in general, but on IXML,
> specifically. It came as a surprise to me to realize last year that the
> group's official title is the "Invisible markup community group", because
> we've all been calling it the IXML CG, and referring to meetings of the
> IXML CG. This mailing list is the "public-ixml" mailing list. The website
> is at "invisiblexml.org". Most of Steven's initial published work, which
> brought us all together to work on the technology, was explicitly XML
> focused, even when presented at general markup fora such as Balisage.
>
> As I've already said, I'm a big fan of invisible markup as a theoretical
> approach, as well as a fan of the concrete work already done by David and
> Ronald. But the work *I* have been doing - and the work done by almost
> everyone else involved so far in this project - has been on IXML. It's
> absolutely fantastic that we now want to open this up. We can (for example)
> argue that IXML is the first, and very successful, example of how invisible
> markup, as a theoretical or abstract approach to markup, can be put into
> practice. I'm totally sold on that approach, and I absolutely now see the
> value of slowly focusing more on "invisible markup" and less on IXML
> specifically.
>
> But I don't find it respectful to the work already done, to the community
> of users and implementers and theorists and scholars who have made IXML
> successful largely because they really want to do stuff with XML, to say
> "Yeah, that IXML thing is just going to be contentious and start arguments.
> Better we don't mention it."
>
> it only brings unnecessary debates to the forefront.
>
>
> If the debates are about whether we want to grow our community by
> redefining it for the benefit of people who are hostile to XML, then I
> think those debates are absolutely necessary.
>
> I am the first to say that prejudice against technologies is not like
> prejudice against people's inherent characteristics such as race or sex or
> disability. Nonetheless, being prejudiced against a technology to the
> extent that you can't possibly be part of a community that mentions that
> technology, without very serious moral or ethical reasons for your
> objections, is infantile. And if there are serious moral or ethical
> objections to XML (or even fairly trivial ones), I haven't yet heard them.
> The only serious objections I've ever heard voiced against the X-stack have
> been a combination of the technical and the political. The former I can
> respect. The latter can get to heck.
>
> But it is not about hiding it, really, and I would feel better if people
> stopped saying that. It is about what is emphasized.
>
>
> Last year, IXML was in the symposium title. This year, we're proposing
> that it should form part of a subtitle, with top billing going to
> "invisible markup". You seem to be arguing that this still constitutes
> "putting IXML defiantly into the title". With respect, it seems that you
> want IXML removed altogether. If that isn't "hiding it", what is it? I'm
> genuinely sorry if that wording makes you feel bad, but then I'd like to
> know how you would describe things instead? Because Elisa and I have,
> between us, offered options that de-emphasize the X, and they haven't
> satisfied you, so it doesn't seem solely to be about what is emphasized and
> what isn't.
>
> BTW
>
> ****************************************************
>
> Dr. Bethan Tovey-Walsh
>
> linguacelta.com
>
> Golygydd | Editor geirfan.cymru
>
> Croeso i chi ysgrifennu ataf yn y Gymraeg
>
> On 19 Aug 2026, at 15:54, Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com> 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...
>
>

-- 
...Wendell Piez... ...wendellpiez.com...
...pellucidliterature.org... ...raventracks.org...
... xproc.zone... ...github.com/wendellpiez...