- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:44 -0500
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On 1/28/2013 6:38 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=xml%2C%20json%2C%20javascript&cmpt=q > > Don't know if this helps or what it really means, but the slope is going down (but then, so is JavaScript?). Right, and so is Unicode: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=javascript%2C%20unicode&cmpt=q We really need to be much more careful in doing any evaluation of what's important on the Web. As my previous note implied, it's a multidimensional question. I claim that the number of XML documents on the Web is significant and growing; others might claim that what's interesting is the format used for data transfer. Looking at what terms people search for could measure many things, but it's not clear what: public interest? confusion? need for education? Unicode is arguably more fundamental to the Web than anything we're discussing, but it's a pretty stable technology and most of us understand its architectural role pretty well. If we want to go down the path of deciding whether XML is a technology that's of significant value to on the Web today, than I think we'll have to take a more careful look than we're likely to do on an e-mail list like this. I still think the prevalence and searchability of documents on the Web in XML, and with seemingly important content, yields an answer of "yes", but if that doesn't convince people, I think we need to do a more careful study (if indeed, knowing the answer is important). Noah
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 02:20:20 UTC