Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : OBJECT DESIGN Inc.: Bargain of the year!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (3171)	12/30/1999 3:04:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3194

HW, Long time no hear. I should kill you for owning HLIT. Concerning the link: The biggest issue facing XML now is whether software firms, like Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, and companies in specific industries, such as banking and health care, can put their competitive differences aside and agree on common formats to use XML. The fear is that software companies will push for incompatible versions of XML that best fit their own product strategies, which could hurt XML's cross-industry appeal. "It would be a great boon for society if everyone can agree on a common format for XML," said Meta Group analyst Craig Roth. No it wouldn't. XML is not like a standard programming language. It isn't so important to have a standard. Maybe it's counter-productive. Standards make sense way after the fact when standardization comes from a desire by the standardees to squeeze a few more drops of profit out of it. It's a sunset technique, collaborate or fail. You hear a lot about this standardization stuff, but where it's needed you never see it. Further, it is in the nature of XML to accommodate many variants. That's its power. It's a consistent extension of HTML where HTML is a static realization. Why does XML need to be native everywhere?