XML is a platform-neutral way to exchange, share, and manipulate information. But what persuades many to use XML is the claim that XML provides a long-term way to store information, independent of tools (both hardware and software) with their short life spans. Projects spend significant resources on XML setup and then settle into doing the real work, using that XML infrastructure to compile, write, analyze, or whatever it is they do. Until, one day — something doesn’t work. Hardware is retired; software is upgraded; specifications go into new releases. Users get stuck. And when they complain, we respond that “of course that doesn’t work any more, you have been accumulating technical debt for years! It is time to reinvest.” They thought they had committed to a one-time cost, and now we tell them that it is an ongoing expense. If the user had put documents into their favorite spreadsheet, they complain, they could still import them into the current version. How do we answer that complaint? We (the XMLers) think we described the values of XML plainly and fairly. We (the XML users) think that the claim that XML documents last a long time is relying on a specious technicality, and we have been trapped dishonestly. I live on both sides of this: as a user I want to invest in infrastructure once and have it last; as a developer I want to be able to improve my product without the limitations imposed by backwards compatibility. We as a community often complain that not enough people are using XML. If we really want XML use to grow, we need to address the gotcha that too many XML users are feeling.