3 ms·
"I think that semantically, they are a wonderful, powerful, useful idea;" I agree. "but syntactically they are awful, confusing, unusable crap." Pretty much t
by dasht 17y ago
"I think that semantically, they are a wonderful, powerful, useful idea;" I agree.
"but syntactically they are awful, confusing, unusable crap." Pretty much the opposite of my experience, and I seem to not be alone. Anecdotally, it's interesting to look at the cat fighting between Dave Winer and the Pubsubhub folks about RSS v. Atom and the constant calls for Winer to sort out his namespace issues. A lot of people seem to find them quite useful and not confusing but, yes, there are people like Winer who (in his case) don't seem to care or (in general) Just Don't Get It. (See my initial comments about the poor state of freely available XML documentation. Someone needs to write the nice 30 page thorough intro to XML concepts and essential details.
- 10ren 17y agoI probably shouldn't say "crap", it just sounded funny to be so emphatic. I think, personally, my confusion really comes from xml schema's use of it, in its rules about qualified vs. unqualified etc. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NS http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#NS It's one of those unintuitive sets of rules that I have to look up every time, and it's horrible to get on top of it again. I think there's probably a de facto standard subset of these rules, that usually used in practice. I bet most visual tools/IDEs make this choice already, so it's invisible to most people who actually work with XML.