> You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. That is an (i.e. your) interpretation of what I said. Please re-read my text below,

> You claimed that XML has an obvious, natural mapping to data structures. That is an (i.e. your) interpretation of what I said. Please re-read my text below, in context. >>> [...] and for that purpose it's horrible because it maps very poorly to data structures in most programming language. >> [...] >> A XML file is, by definition, a context-free grammar, the same type of grammars used to specify programming languages. >> [...] >> To me, it is immediate to see the correct data structure in both examples. > After looking at the same extremely simple data structure, two people came up with three different XML representations, each with different pros and cons. > Your argument didn't come out in very good shape from that exchange. I disagree with you: both understood pretty well my data structures and came up with even clearer notation, making my point that it is a suitable grammar representation for data structures. > Your smugness is unwarranted. Seriously?