3 ms·

> To appreciate the difficulties of XML, let’s make a short excursion to the world of XML schema [...], which must be one of the most complex artifacts invented

> To appreciate the difficulties of XML, let’s make a short excursion to the world of XML schema [...], which must be one of the most complex artifacts invented by mankind. The complexity of XSD is especially baffling since the existing solution, DTDs, is already a perfectly fine solution. Ah, the period where it was attempted to integrate XML as first-class type/literal into programming languages. I guess the conclusion can only be that what SGML/XML is designed to represent (namely, semistructured text documents with regular content models) was fundamentally misunderstood by folks wanting to represent (relatively benign) business records-like structures for service-oriented apps. The complexity results for statically type-checking programming languages having XML as literals were disappointing, and the whole thing got out of fashion. Then, shortly after Mozilla dropped E4X (XML literals in JavaScript), JSX and React happened. I honestly don't know what conclusion should be drawn here :)

lmm 7y ago
My conclusions would be: usability in the small matters. Overengineering is the natural fate of standards and must be fought at every turn. Insist ruthlessly on conciseness at the cost of virtually anything else (but not consistency; remember Perl).
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  Yes, and it's all the more ironic that XML started out as a simplified subset of SGML - only to turn into a monstrosity shortly after with W3C's XML Schema and WS-* "death star" series of standards.
throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Tried to read the article but "We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. It seems your browser doesn't support them and this affects the site functionality." Yes indeed, no cookies = no article, displaying text apparently being 'functionality'. Anwyay, going from your quoted extract, I agree XML schemas are one of the most revoltingly complex and awful things I've ever seen, and badly at that, but to claim DTDs as being "a perfectly fine solution" is just ridiculous. DTDs give an overall structure, not any kind of typing that XSDs give. DTDs are a crude start, not an endpoint. Lord how I got to hate XSDs and XSLT. XML by itself is fine (in the right place) and I like it but it seemed to become the core of a everyone-lost-your-sanity frenzy. It was mad, very wasteful and I'm glad it's all over. Edit: only XSLT could be so godawful as to require a new mechanism to pass parameters. https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/03/24/tr.html https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/03/24/tr.html
michaelcampbell 7y ago
Early Scala's inclusion of XML as a thing baffled me from the start.

lmm 7y ago

My conclusions would be: usability in the small matters. Overengineering is the natural fate of standards and must be fought at every turn. Insist ruthlessly on conciseness at the cost of virtually anything else (but not consistency; remember Perl).

tannhaeuser 7y ago
Yes, and it's all the more ironic that XML started out as a simplified subset of SGML - only to turn into a monstrosity shortly after with W3C's XML Schema and WS-* "death star" series of standards.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

Tried to read the article but "We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. It seems your browser doesn't support them and this affects the site functionality." Yes indeed, no cookies = no article, displaying text apparently being 'functionality'. Anwyay, going from your quoted extract, I agree XML schemas are one of the most revoltingly complex and awful things I've ever seen, and badly at that, but to claim DTDs as being "a perfectly fine solution" is just ridiculous. DTDs give an overall structure, not any kind of typing that XSDs give. DTDs are a crude start, not an endpoint. Lord how I got to hate XSDs and XSLT. XML by itself is fine (in the right place) and I like it but it seemed to become the core of a everyone-lost-your-sanity frenzy. It was mad, very wasteful and I'm glad it's all over. Edit: only XSLT could be so godawful as to require a new mechanism to pass parameters. https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/03/24/tr.html https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/03/24/tr.html

michaelcampbell 7y ago

Early Scala's inclusion of XML as a thing baffled me from the start.