- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:03:59 -0500
- To: 'Mark Baker' <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
For every SVG, there will be a DataGraphicXML. For every X3D, there will be a 3DIF. The social and economic forces are stronger than the technical forces. The IP profits alone are worth busting the myth of standards convergence. The lifecycle of XML languages will be determined by their composability with other languages under the different programming frameworks. Natural languages never converge even if they have common features and members. Language fragmentation is a natural event. len From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] I wouldn't say that this was the point of XML. IMO, it's simply to have an interchangeable markup syntax, which is just what we've got. Nothing about that precludes further innovation "on top" of XML to address the scalability issues of, well, a proliferation of XML document formats. 8-) IMO, RDF/XML is such an innovation (and more generally, RDF itself), so I think the W3C has that part of the problem covered. But obviously David's paper discusses the more general problem.
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 18:04:34 UTC