Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> http://plasmasturm.org/log/447/

You make a falicitous assumption that the 'public' wanted to move to XHTML
when (IMO) it was only a tiny percentage that really wanted to move.

And I'll argue that having the browser support it strictly (and strictness
is what I'm arguing against) would have resulting in too many people seeing
the web as broken which an important contingent (that mainly includes
Microsoft) simply won't let that happen. So you can hypothesize, but your
hypothecies don't match that which could be the only realisitic reality.

> > It's biggest benefit is that it has been widely deployed but its
> > complexity (namespaces, schemas, XSLT, etc.)
>
> All of these are opt-in.

There are not opt-in when a web service that I need to consume requires me
to use them. That's why I said my opinion was that XML with all its baggage
works best when you control the development of both the client and the
server.

> Although I think well-practiced
> namespaces (mustIgnore et al) are a huge win.

And I think namespaces as implemented in XML are a pox on the web and
software/development in general.

> Actually XSLT
> is not even opt-in, it's completely orthogonal (well, unless
> you serve transformations to clients as a sort of
> code-on-demand approach, I suppose - a rather hypothetical scenario).

Again, you are making my previous point.

Now don't take this as me saying "Don't use XML" just take it as me instead
saying "Please don't force me to consume XML as my only option" and "Don't
admonish me for choosing to serve JSON."

> I'm with Stefan here - I seriously fail to see this.

See my reply to Stefan.

> So don't. You're not the first to say that having documents
> declare their type and thus how to validate them is
> backwards, nor is anything you say news to anyone who has
> bought into Schematron.

Okay...

> XML is best used whenever your data is not completely rigidly
> structured and clients are wildly heterogenous.

Huh? That's my argument for when it is worse used, at least with namespaces
and validation. If you are arguing that it is best used in contexts where
namespaces and validation are not used I'll agree it's not harmful but will
save that it requires a lot of overhead to download and parse both from all
the extra characters and the fact that there are direct-to-object parsers
are not common.

> (Of course, just because you're using XML doesn't
> automatically mean you'll end up with a well thought-out
> vocabulary. Most ad-hoc vocabs are mediocre or worse. That's
> hardly XML's fault.)

Is that the "Guns don't kill people, people do" argument?

> > Personally I find the verbosity and all the extranious
> syntax of XML
> > to be harder to read than JSON, not easier.
>
> http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/01/03/all-markup-
> ends-up-looking-like-xml/

I'll see your URL and raise you one:
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d639d908-7fbc-40cd-8e3
6-e6d48c07f659
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=39842a17-781a-45c8-ade
5-58286909226b
http://www.pluralsight.com/blogs/dbox/archive/2007/01/03/45560.aspx

But back to your URL:

Quoting Dare Obasanjo:
======
You XML folks completely miss the point. JSON is important because it is
better supported in the browser than XML. That's why it has taken hold.
Arguing that angle brackets, S-expressions and JSON syntax are all
semantically equivalent is the height of architecture astronautics[0] and
COMPLETELY misses the point.
======

Quoting David Megginson:
======
all modern browsers have support built-in for parsing XML safely, though the
interface they present to the programmer (DOM) is low-level and awkward, so
in practice, you have to install some kind of separate library to simplify
processing.
...
I don't claim that anyone else should have exactly the same experience as
me, but it is worth noting that this is a pretty heavily subjective area.
======

Quoting John D. Mitchell:
======
While the nominal complicatedness is similar, note the clarity differences -
particularly in the last, most complicated example. The xml example is
almost completely un-scannable and so has to be (slowly, carefully) read.
The Lisp is easy/fast to scan. The JSON is somewhere in-between.
...
I think you're helping to prove my point. You've been "reading" XML for so
long that you think that it's scannable.
Seriously, there's a huge difference between in the ability to carefully
read something and the ability to glance at it and get it that is, IMHO,
grossly underestimated by advocates of "dense" languages. This cost goes up
as the length and complicatedness of the documents increases.
======

Quoting Masklinn:
======
Wow. David, have you at no point considered refactoring your Lisp and JSON
markups? They're horrible, you're piling crap on crap it's idiotic.
======

Quoting rektide:
======
the thing I like about JSON is that it maps to a object oriented data
structure, and the tooling surrounding it is just about
serial/deserialization. in comparison, the DOM data structure used by XML is
immensely frustrating to deal with. multiple text node children hanging off
elements, content validation before you can .InnerText, theres just a never
ending rigamaroll to do what is ultimately a very very simple task, and i
for one do not enjoy writing such verbose kludgtastic code. the data
structures built by xml tooling just suck horrendous ass.
======

Quoting David Megginson again:
====
rektide: I think you hit on a major problem with XML in the browser - it's
not XML itself, but the DOM, which is an extremely awkward interface to use.
Part of that is because DOM has to be able to handle mixed content as well
as fielded data, but a lot of it is simply the DOM's design history.
====

And finally quoting Andrzej Taramina who quotes HL Mencken:
====
Might be worth considering 's thoughts on XML vs JSON vs LISP et all:
"We must accept the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart."
XML vs JSON vs LISP, that would be the "religion" part.
====

Gotta love the ending of rektide's quote about xml tooling sucking
horrendous ass. '-)

But I think his point is that all the formats have benefits and XML may have
some benefits as complexities grow which I won't debate. OTOH, I like to
minimize complexity in web services as much as possible.

Anyway, gotta love it when someone argues with someone else about that
person's opinion on what is usable for them... '-)
BTW, if there is one thing that can really get my hackles up, its when
people argue that syntactical differences are just sugar...

As an aside, in reference to your comment on Messingson's blog: "I used to
hate XML. Then I discovered XPath." For JSON it's called jQuery.
Hey, if the XML folks can argue for finding tools that make it easier, why
can't we? '-)

--
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org