W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Scope of W3C recommendations; core issue for polyglot & DRM

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:19:44 -0500
Message-ID: <510731C0.8080304@arcanedomain.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:51 UTC