[StJacques]

". . . You make an argument about XML interoperability and conclude that somehow it is Microsoft that started it all. That is inconsistent with historical facts. . . ."

You are correct. Maybe I should have pinged you on my post #105 above. I wrote:

". . . Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability. In this respect, they followed IBM's lead, since it was IBM who first asked the W3C to adopt XML standards in 1996 to provide a cross-platform capability that would form an alternative to ActiveX. . . ."

And as for binary processing, that is a restrictive use of XML to be sure. And I applaud you for your publishing work and your capabilities in service-oriented architectures. I have spoken on the latter at conferences and elsewhere and I have worked as a technical reviewer for Wrox Press on XML Web Services (Schema-Based Programming).

[rit]

. . . Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability.

My understanding is that Microsoft needed XML to extend their DCOM implementation, and created SOAP from the early XLM-RPC exactly for that purpose. Cross-platform interoperability manifested itself years later as .Net.

I find no technical basis to support your belief that Microsoft is the biggest supporter of cross platform portability. However, I do not have an issue with Microsoft's Office XML requiring licenses that are inconsistent with the GPL. I also believe that certain aspects of the GPL could preclude interoperability using XML anyhow.