>Relax, let the hype happen. The best way to make sure it isn't perceived as
>a Microsoft-owned thing is to make sure that it isn't.
>If you fight it you come off looking like a bunch of losers. You make it
For the most part, true. What I mean by charm offensive is articles and sites
that talk about what XML is capable of, not articles blasting the critics.
The responses to that Feed article have hopefully reduced its impact
(especially Rob Glidden's, which may make Feed think twice about having
I hope to establish a significant site presenting an introduction to XML in
June, when I have the time. (In other words, when I no longer have a real job
and sit around scribbling.)
>XML doesn't need promotion, it needs serious software that solves problems
>that real people have. That's all it needs. The press will play it as they
>want to play it. They've been burned before, and conspiracy stories are
>popular with their readers.
XML does need promotion - to the developers building those tools, and building
those documents. XML is a bit abstract even for your average developer. Its
status as architecture makes it harder to grasp than HTML - and people are
mostly comfortable, if a bit itchy, with HTML. I'd like to see Frontier have
lots of competition. A few early adopters are building, but I don't think
we've reached critical mass.
As for conspiracy theories, they're fun. Microsoft is quite capable of being
a conspiracy all its own, much as Standard Oil was in its day. The press can
have their field days, but I'd like to see some articles that demonstrate that
they've actually done some research. XML is hard to describe - the early
reporters on the subject knew that. I suppose that a few rough spots are to
be expected as the number of people aware of XML widens. Unfortunately, "All
publicity is good publicity" doesn't always apply in computing.
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies