I've been thinking more about my earlier comments on aesthetics and think that maybe I took too simple a view. I value the aesthetics of the underlying XML, but there are lots of people out there who only value the aesthetics of what you can do with the XML - Web Services people are one group, but there are lots of other programmers and database people out there with their own aesthetics.

To those folks, the state of the XML underneath their transactions is "mere" aesthetics. It doesn't affect the performance of their applications in ways they notice or understand. XML-RPC has some bizarre structural anomalies in its parameter markup, but no one cares. I'm reminded of a comment I heard at last year's XML 2001 show: "Why would I go to a Web Services conference? It's not like I need to learn how to use XML badly."

Developers who work primarily with XML focus on document structure, while Web Services developers focus on application structure. It's kind of like the difference between building a house designed for a particular group of occupants (XML) or building a set of houses stamped out identically regardless of who will live there or why (Web Services).

People do seem awfully content to live in Generica, delighted by the aesthetics and cost of carbon-copy houses, malls, and lots and lots of roads. Maybe that's a better strategy for reaching a large audience in any case.