>  but when the question of 
> 'why XML' comes up, the answers are reduced to 'because it 
> is there'.

The fact that we now have a universal data format that developer's can 
just assume will always be there is pretty damn compelling.  Perhaps it 
can only really be appreciated if you've lived through other bridges:
	com/corba
	usenet/email
	rfc822 and mime/x.400
	sna / tcp/ip
	iso (GOSIP, anyone?) / tcp/ip
	archie, gopher / http

> Indeed, when a binary XML as an alternative is proposed and 
> solutions are documented, the WG is asked to jump through 
> hoops not asked of any other working group.

I completely disagree with this characterization.  When the XBC WG said 
"we want to provide an alternative to now-universal serialization", the 
TAG said "show us the numbers."  BTW, the TAG doesn't make policy 
decisions like what WG to create.  Right now, you can take any 
XML-generating application and feed its output into any XML-consuming 
toolkit.  We'd be fools to give that up without having concrete proof 
that it'd be worth it.

	/r$
-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html