[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• From: "Cavnar-Johnson, John" <JCavnar-Johnson@s...>
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:56:39 -0500
• In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.44.0305161058140.3429-100000@l...>
• Thread-index: AcMbwMzKmnYHQVx/SEiZLDgtrIkVDAAAWDJg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Gray [mailto:cpgray@l...]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:35 AM
> To: Simon St.Laurent
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> 
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> > Fair enough - I'm just concerned that the author doesn't have enough of
> > a grasp on how XML fits or doesn't fit into his story to make it
> > coherent.
> >
> > I noted that I agree with him that Microsoft's "XML as Web-programming
> > language" story is ridiculous, but I wish he'd taken a close look at the
> > XML that the Office applications really generate rather than a
> > "hypothetical Microsoft License Verification Markup language".
> >
> > I agree that the sky isn't falling - I just don't trust this particular
> > forecaster's reasoning.  It seems to be based on a lot of things
> > Microsoft might do rather than an analysis of what they're actually
> > doing now.
> >
> > I'm not comfortable with the article as a whole as a result.
> 
> OK, but the article presents itself as a response to fears raised by Gary
> Edwards over what Microsoft "might do".  The article's really more about
> what comes after Passport and Palladium, than about XML.
> 
> Sure it's hard to guess just how serious Microsoft is about trying to
> leverage XML in its lock-in strategy, but could it work?  The main thing
> Murphy seems to envision is Office XML documents supported by so much
> piggy-backed technology that only Microsoft would have the resources to
> keep it all working smoothly.  On one hand, that kind of paranoia seems
> like something out of the X-Files; on the other, think of all the Web
> sites that are only really viewable with IE in spite of IE compliance with
> W3C standards and because of the proliferation of MS added on Web tools
> and technologies.
> 
> Chris
> 

The article is completely devoid of both facts and coherent reasoning.  The
author doesn't appear to understand Microsoft, XML, security, or software
economics, and, yet, those are the topics of the article.  What sort of
discussion is possible about this article?

• References:
  • Re: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
    • From: Chris Gray <cpgray@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: UNeDocs
• Next by Date: RE: RE: DAML +OIL versus XML
• Previous by thread: RE: UNeDocs
• Next by thread: Re: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread