I admit general ignorance of XML, my usage being limited to a few-times extractions of UT Wish List information using the provided web service facility.

Otherwise, I've just been a reader of articles, new VFP commands/functions and such.

Since its start MS seemed particularly 'interested' in the concept and that grew beyond the ordinary when it announced its intention to integrate XML even into the Office suite. We now have XML deeply integrated into all of .NET, (soon) all of SQL Server, (soon) all of MS Office and who knows what else.

Now since its start XML was promoted as a simple common way to communicate (information) between disparate applications (and organizations). Many developers have been quick to exploit this new 'facility' (really a concept with varying implementations) and those that have extol its virtues.

When MS first announced .NET many understood that MS was saying that it wanted to become "the cloud" that was so prominently mentioned in its literature. This meant that MS would become the custodian of access to data and that MS would store that data (on behalf of customers world-wide). Things have since been significantly toned down but there has been no retraction or revision by MS about its ultimate goal(s).

As I understand XML, it basically describes and contains data. This gives a developer great "freedom" in designing systems that communicate between each other and process all or parts of the data stored between them.
But... is this "freedom" long-lasting? My guess is that it is decidedly only short-lived.

For MS to fulfill its ultimate goal(s) it seems clear that XML has to be used by every processing entity of consequence. That this should happen in a slow and methodical way is perfectly amenable to MS' long-term goal(s).
But isn't there an inherent implication in "used by every processing entity" that enforces standardization... at the cost of this 'freedom'?
It seems clear to me that for two disparate companies to exchange information through XML then those companies have to agree on XML field names, type and content. Sure, it may be real simple for one end (or both) to change their current XML output to match the other's, but has not that act reduced the 'freedom' that either of those companies were enjoying originally? And as this interaction propagates (first within a common industry, then between industries) we have all those companies using the same XML definitions. That's not an expression of 'freedom' to me.
Even if some "translation layer" is introduced to "preserve the freedom", would this make a difference in the ultimate need for future systems development? I think not.

That XML would be integrated into Word, Excel, SQL Server (and .NET programming languages right now) and other MS products can ultimately lead to XML being the bridge between the office clerk and the computer system.
It doesn't take a genius to see the potential for standardized Word/Excel functionality to 'talk' directly to SQL Server for anything from label printing to complex spreadsheet analysis to order recording to stock control to shipping to... . These would interact with SQL Server without the need for programming tailored to the specific data. In short order "the cloud" can become a reality and MS can have the full control it is seeking.

One can picture MS' revenue stream completely dropping programming languages in favour of fees for "cloud services" including renting (MS coded) add-ins for specific extra processing, most likely in what we currently call 'stored procedures'. Database management/optimization/enhancement would all be under MS' control, those services included in the pricing of the cloud services contracted.

Does this picture hold any real possibility? If so we (developers) may be the human equivalent of lemmings, unknowingly running toward the edge of a cliff to our own demise. Is this something that people regularly and willingly and enthusiastically do?

Any thoughts yourself?