3 ms·

The point is, XML is quite good for unstructured, semi-structured and strongly-structured data and is more versatile from this point of view.

• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The point is, XML is quite good for unstructured, semi-structured and strongly-structured data That's a highly-subjective and controversial point. (To me, XML is the Java of data languages -- its a lot worse than the best alternative considered on its own for almost any purpose -- though the best alternative will vary by purpose -- but it has a fairly wide range of uses for which its not intolerably bad, and its often a better choice than its inherent features would suggest because of the strength and maturity of the ecosystem around it.)
  • zamalek 11y ago
    > best alternative For 100% of the XML feature-set I don't actually know of a viable alternative. If you are using XML for the right reasons and the right way (rare) there is currently little or nothing that can replace. That being said, there are a vanishingly small amount of problems that actually require XML - namespaces and extensibility are two of them.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > For 100% of the XML feature-set I don't actually know of a viable alternative. Real problems rarely need 100% of the XML feature set to solve. The breadth of the feature set is why there are lots of problems for which XML is a tolerable solution based on its inherent features (which in turn is a big factor in why it has such a large ecosystem), but they often don't make it the best solution (especially before considering the ecosystem, which is important in choosing a tool, but not a reason to avoid developing a new alternative, since any new alternative is going to start with an ecosystem disadvantage, but with adequate inherent value should be able over time to gather an ecosystem of tools.)
  • orless 11y ago
    I should have probably said "equally good".