Re: Second International Symposium on Invisible XML

Bethan,

Goodness, now we really are splitting hairs.

Norm's non-standard curly-braces emission feature does not disqualify his
processor from being an iXML processor, as conformance does not require
that no optional features be offered. You did not say it did -- but neither
have I proposed that iXML be removed from the name of iXML, or that XML be
removed from the name of iXML, or from iXML itself, or that XML isn't
important and foundational.

I can agree with everything in your latest email, and still not agree that
putting "iXML" into the title of the conference is an open-and-shut case
with an obvious answer. Even for an iXML conference!

Here is the current statement of the conference's scope (pasted from
invisiblexml.org). With respect, I think it's a little soft around the
edges regarding the question at hand:

> Invisible XML (ixml) is a language and process for identifying structure
in documents. Invisible markup allows users to exploit the implicit
structures in documents without the need for explicit markup. Since the
release of the ixml standard in 2022, we have seen a steady increase in the
use of ixml, as well as many interesting conference presentations about the
language. The community group felt the time was right for an event
exclusively dedicated to invisible markup.

I think this softness is good, making the (iXML) focus clear without
imposing constraints on what people might wish to bring. But now I am
wondering if you agree with me (that the softness is good). So let me put
it more bluntly: should I feel welcome at the iXML conference, if my work
is with a non-XML technology, or even a workalike (rival) technology to
iXML?

I mean, your answer might be "no, you are not really welcome". But imagine
if one or two important JSON influencers had come to an XML conference when
it might have made a difference. I doubt there would be less JSON, but
there might be less stupidity.

Thanks, Wendell


On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:52 AM Bethan Tovey-Walsh <
bytheway@linguacelta.com> wrote:

> But iXML isn't constrained to emit only XML!
>
>
> Currently, it is. The specification requires that an iXML processor should
> produce XML. Some implementers offer other serialization formats as a
> convenience, but those aren't standardized.
>
> XML's constraints shape what IXML is and what it can do. For example, you
> can write an IXML grammar that could create more than one attribute with
> the same name, but a conforming processor will throw an error if the
> combination of input and grammar actually requires it to create an XML
> element with multiple attributes of the same name.
>
> I agree that "invisible markup" is wildly exciting, and I'm particularly
> interested in coming up with new specifications that can handle different
> types of markup natively. But IXML is shaped by XML, and its only standard
> output format is XML. It's far from being the format-agnostic "invisible
> markup" your description implies, Wendell.
>
> Best,
>
> BTW
>
> ****************************************************
>
> Dr. Bethan Tovey-Walsh
>
> linguacelta.com
>
> Golygydd | Editor geirfan.cymru
>
> Croeso i chi ysgrifennu ataf yn y Gymraeg
>
> On 21 Aug 2026, at 15:24, Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hello again,
>
> Reading Elisa's latest it sounds like her students wouldn't actually hate
> "Invisible Markup". And they taste a new kind of acronym salad almost every
> week.
>
> She also adds --
>
>   "unless you’re wanting to expand this to be a universal grammars
> conference. That could be very exciting too?"
>
> What makes iXML ("Invisible XML") a good name for the technology is that
> it leverages the reputed universality ("extensibility") of XML, while it
> builds into the name the inevitable question ("what's it have to do with
> XML?") with a very satisfying answer. XML constrains your results, not your
> inputs. iXML doesn't make you lock into XML: it's the opposite. Part of the
> universality of XML is its capability to be easily migrated into the tree
> structure of your choice, including popular tree-shaped serializations.
> Even people who hate XML, if they know anything at all about it, often know
> this much.
>
> But iXML isn't constrained to emit only XML! That's only a default, a
> convenience, and a huge fulcrum for leverage by any developer who knows how
> to push lightly on the far end.
>
> In view of that fact, and of the fact that (we are agreeing, I think) not
> to "hide" iXML but to put it in lights -- can't we consider having a
> universal grammars conference? Are we afraid of who might come?
>
> Cheers and thanks again for further indulgence -- Wendell
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 10:42 PM Beshero-Bondar, Elisa Eileen <
> eeb4@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I have to say to this is just that I know some “young
>> people”, who didn’t grow up with XML before I knew them, and who:
>> 1) enjoy learning XML and Relax NG
>> 2) enjoy what they can do with IXML.
>>
>> The second is maybe a smaller subset of the first, but the young people
>> who take to ixml tend to go on and build remarkable projects, and they
>> really benefit from having a conference / symposium opportunity like this.
>> Please keep them in view. Every time these technologies are taught, we find
>> that people mainly tend to enjoy what they are learning.
>>
>> I write this while I really need to be preparing the syllabus for my
>> undergraduate Text Encoding class for this fall, and while hoping to see
>> students who still want to learn for themselves this year, just like last
>> year. I have some evidence that people like learning this material and
>> appreciate seeing what professionals do with it. So much so that I might be
>> bothering some of you to be guest speakers sometime. :-) If young people
>> like this esoteric stuff, perhaps defining conferences as opportunities for
>> sharing work in ixml isn’t so bad.
>>
>> Also, people really want to know what the “invisible” stuff is about. I
>> think “Invisible XML” is well named to draw the curious and the markup
>> geeks, and I still don’t really understand the desire to stretch ixml to
>> something it’s not designed for, unless you’re wanting to expand this to be
>> a universal grammars conference. That could be very exciting too?
>>
>> Just host it, and we’ll join. But I hope XML is celebrated throughout the
>> event, even and especially as a format supporting transforms to everything
>> else.
>>
>> Elisa
>>
>> Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD (she/they)
>> TEI Technical Council Chair
>> Development site: https://newtfire.org
>> Program Chair of Digital Media, Arts, and Technology | Professor of
>> Digital Humanities |  Director of the Digital Humanities Lab at Penn State
>> Erie, The Behrend College
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2026 6:02 PM
>> *To:* ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Second International Symposium on Invisible XML
>>
>>
>> On 20 August 2026 17:16:03 Bethan Tovey-Walsh <bytheway@linguacelta.com>
>> <bytheway@linguacelta.com> wrote:
>> > Can you please outline these other considerations, which make you >
>> think that the symposium title would be better without IXML in it? Guilty
>> as charged. My concern for not having XML in the title (but definitely in
>> the subtitle) was the very large number of people whose response to the
>> term "XML" is "Oh not that pointy-bracket gibberish again" (virtually every
>> developer I encounter: Liam's #5). I'm not exaggerating, but perhaps they
>> are by definition not in scope, so I am happy to withdraw my concern.
>> I wonder what would happen if we ran a symposium on Invisible JSON?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>
> --
> ...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...