3 ms·
"conveniently typed and namespaced semi-structured data in the end" - I don't think that thing will be much more simple than XML - it needs to cover Unicode, da
by xchaotic 9y ago
"conveniently typed and namespaced semi-structured data in the end" - I don't think that thing will be much more simple than XML - it needs to cover Unicode, data types, namespaces, modularity and you end up with XML-level of complexity. I know wheel gets reinvented a lot in software, but with data formats you also need tools, adoption, compatibility - XML wins here
- anyfoo 9y agoIt might not be very simple, but I certainly hope it does not necessarily imply SGML levels of cruft. The things you have covered don't need any of that cruft. You are right that adoption is a major hurdle for any new solution, if it's even attainable, but that's pretty much my point. I'm sad that XML came to reach critical adoption for semi-structured data, and not something else.
- pllbnk 9y agoI think the reason for this increasing complexity comes from efforts to be satisfy every single use case. When everybody starts pitching in in the creation of the standards with their weird corporate use cases and actual specification writers try to satisfy each and every one of them. There is no reason schema specification has to be very complex. Instead, it can be made open for extension but be very concise and with clear boundaries itself.