It is interesting that articles about XML messaging discuss the 
advantages of messaging thoroughly but when the question of 
'why XML' comes up, the answers are reduced to 'because it 
is there'.  In some articles, the problems of XML verbosity 
and other nits are elaborated, but at the end, the same 
answer 'because it is there' or 'there are no attractive 
alternatives' are given.  Laziness or just momentum?

While I don't expect an industry with so much invested in 
XML to do this, I am surprised that universities and other 
research labs are not working on that side of the problem. 
Perhaps they are but aren't saying much about it.

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.

That kind of institutional resistance to innovation is 
strikingly strange.   That XML will be replaced eventually 
is almost certain given it's inefficiencies for this 
particular application.  While that time has not come, it is 
a provocative thought experiment to speculate on the shape 
and characteristics of its successor.

o  A simpler XML?

o  A smarter XML?

o  Binary XML

All known and there have been attempts.

o  Objects

The third is what some were after before the web.  
Why not send compiled objects?  (I know 
some of these reasons but from time to time, it is useful to 
start from a fresh perspective.)

len