4 ms·

Oh yes RFC process always keeps things from having compatibility issues. I definitely never saw any issues with all those XML based standards like SOAP or XSLT

Oh yes RFC process always keeps things from having compatibility issues. I definitely never saw any issues with all those XML based standards like SOAP or XSLT.

eadmund 8y ago
A lot of that is because XML is objectively insane: it's a monumentally over-specified version of something that a sane community would have sketched out on the back of a cocktail napkin. XML is S-expressions done wrong. It's a massive amount of ceremony & boilerplate, IMHO due to the pain of dealing with dynamic data in static languages. It's basically the Java of data-transfer languages. And it shouldn't even be used for data transfer: it's a markup language, for Pete's sake!
- dagenix 8y ago
  "objectively insane", "over-specified". I'm not sure what "objectively sane" is, but, I guess something specified that way would be a good thing - provided its not "over-specified" since that would be a bad thing, I guess.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
  Please. XML specification is much shorter than that of YAML, for example, even though XML 1.0 includes a simple grammar-based validation spec (DTD). "A markup language"? What does it mean? Are there any special "data-transfer languages" we neglect? :) Data gets serialized; we need to mark different parts of it; XML can totally do it. For some cases it's not the best fit, but nothing is.
- zmix 8y ago
  > And it shouldn't even be used for data transfer: it's a markup language XML could never be used for data transfer. That is being done by the protocol. That would be, in most of the XML cases: HTTP(S). GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stones/wp:discography/wp:album/dc:title/text() http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stones/wp:discography/w... GET http://store.steamcommunity.com/profile/myprofile/games.xml//title/text() http://store.steamcommunity.com/profile/myprofile/games.xml/... Wow! That's a beauty! And that's only because XML is BOTH a document and a data structure. It has two personalities, but only one identity. And it is not schizophrenic about it. It's always clear. > A lot of that is because XML is objectively insane I don't find "everything is a node" to be insane. It's like "Everything is a file" followed through up to the atomic value. /net/host/volume/directory/file.xml/document-node/some/other/node/attribute or /net/host/volume/directory/file.xml//all-nodes[@where-this-attributes-value="foobar"] Looks like a perfect match for both command line as well as RESTful access. > monumentally over-specified The XML spec, while having a healthy size, is not overly big: https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ Do not confuse the additional specs like XSL, XPath and XQuery as the "XML" spec. These are your toolbox. And their volume is in no way bigger than any of the frameworks, programmers use. Also XSD is not really part of the XML spec. You don't need it in many cases. It's a meta language, that consists of a simple convention: Elements and Attributes. You name them what you want and get a document, that, at the same time is a queriable datastructure. But I've said that already...
unmole 8y ago
IETF's RFC process does a pretty good job at keeping things compatible. But I agree W3C specs, especially the SOAP ones are absolutely horrible.
o_____________o 8y ago
Wouldn't it be great if we had some ML to transform unnecessary sarcasm? > RFC processes don't always keep things from having compatibility issues. XML based standards like SOAP or XSLT had many issues. It would make the internet seem much less passive aggressive. Sarcasm is often just a thin, bitter encoding over simple statements.

Oh yes RFC process always keeps things from having compatibility issues. I definitely never saw any issues with all those XML based standards like SOAP or XSLT.

eadmund 8y ago

A lot of that is because XML is objectively insane: it's a monumentally over-specified version of something that a sane community would have sketched out on the back of a cocktail napkin. XML is S-expressions done wrong. It's a massive amount of ceremony & boilerplate, IMHO due to the pain of dealing with dynamic data in static languages. It's basically the Java of data-transfer languages. And it shouldn't even be used for data transfer: it's a markup language, for Pete's sake!

dagenix 8y ago
"objectively insane", "over-specified". I'm not sure what "objectively sane" is, but, I guess something specified that way would be a good thing - provided its not "over-specified" since that would be a bad thing, I guess.
Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
Please. XML specification is much shorter than that of YAML, for example, even though XML 1.0 includes a simple grammar-based validation spec (DTD). "A markup language"? What does it mean? Are there any special "data-transfer languages" we neglect? :) Data gets serialized; we need to mark different parts of it; XML can totally do it. For some cases it's not the best fit, but nothing is.
zmix 8y ago
> And it shouldn't even be used for data transfer: it's a markup language XML could never be used for data transfer. That is being done by the protocol. That would be, in most of the XML cases: HTTP(S). GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stones/wp:discography/wp:album/dc:title/text() http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stones/wp:discography/w... GET http://store.steamcommunity.com/profile/myprofile/games.xml//title/text() http://store.steamcommunity.com/profile/myprofile/games.xml/... Wow! That's a beauty! And that's only because XML is BOTH a document and a data structure. It has two personalities, but only one identity. And it is not schizophrenic about it. It's always clear. > A lot of that is because XML is objectively insane I don't find "everything is a node" to be insane. It's like "Everything is a file" followed through up to the atomic value. /net/host/volume/directory/file.xml/document-node/some/other/node/attribute or /net/host/volume/directory/file.xml//all-nodes[@where-this-attributes-value="foobar"] Looks like a perfect match for both command line as well as RESTful access. > monumentally over-specified The XML spec, while having a healthy size, is not overly big: https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ Do not confuse the additional specs like XSL, XPath and XQuery as the "XML" spec. These are your toolbox. And their volume is in no way bigger than any of the frameworks, programmers use. Also XSD is not really part of the XML spec. You don't need it in many cases. It's a meta language, that consists of a simple convention: Elements and Attributes. You name them what you want and get a document, that, at the same time is a queriable datastructure. But I've said that already...

unmole 8y ago

IETF's RFC process does a pretty good job at keeping things compatible. But I agree W3C specs, especially the SOAP ones are absolutely horrible.

o_____________o 8y ago

Wouldn't it be great if we had some ML to transform unnecessary sarcasm? > RFC processes don't always keep things from having compatibility issues. XML based standards like SOAP or XSLT had many issues. It would make the internet seem much less passive aggressive. Sarcasm is often just a thin, bitter encoding over simple statements.