The conclusion of the article (and the series of articles of which it is a part) is interesting, and yields the basis for the title of the article:
Are we going in circles? Or just covering the same ground and hashing over the same tired arguments? The answer is, of course, yes, though in a good way. Get a few geeks in the same room (or often, just two) and you've got all the fixin's for a lively debate. Despite what seems at times like bickering, xml-dev provides a useful forum that has helped to shape the opinions of many readers. Thoughtful commentary regularly shows up from those in the best position to render a valuable opinion.
The list also provides a useful consensus monitor. Is xml:id a good thing? Is binary XML a good thing? What's wrong with Namespaces anyway? When a rough consensus exists, it surfaces eventually. When no consensus exists -- when multiple outlooks are both possible and strongly defensible -- well, that's where the permathreads come from.
In any event, the mailing list continues to be a useful resource with no signs of slowing down.
XML is very common in Java enterprise programming, of course - mandated by the specs for deployment and used nearly everywhere for transfer of data between systems. The vast number of frameworks and APIs, however, seems to indicate that XML may be common, but its usage is not commonly agreed-upon (with the exception of SOAP, perhaps, but even SOAP has justifiable detractors).
What do you think? The article alludes to some common practices being accepted (and some standards bodies - notably, the W3C - being marginalized in the process). Do you think that's happening quickly enough? What issues do you see?