Joe,
We can hope that times change - and progress happens. I'm basing my comments on interactions with prior participants from times past.
<snip>The academic criticisms of EML
have been very narrow and application specific (for example, "I need a
data structure that is very lightweight, not something like EML.").</snip>
I think this speaks volumes. I recently posted the example of the minimal EML 440 - which frankly I found seminal in showing just how tiny and lightweight EML can be when used appropriately - debunking these perceptions - but it also shows the gap between theorists and XML practitioners knowledge and understanding.
As I say - this gap is challenging to bridge - because at times one senses the theorists really do NOT want to hear that XML is simple and transparent - as that really negates what they are trying to promote.
Recently I've been showing how to use XML and EML for tallying with Excel spreadsheets - no PhD required - completely transparent, simple and verifiable - easily auditable and zero cost technology. For people seeking topics for extended research grants - this is possibly not exactly what they want to hear...
Good luck with your talk!
Thanks, DW