4 ms·

XML is a great choice for this because it's a markup language: it's designed for adding structure and formatting information to documents in a way that's generi

XML is a great choice for this because it's a markup language: it's designed for adding structure and formatting information to documents in a way that's generic and extensible. Something like Markdown is too spartan for all the kinds of things you need to make a technical document.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
XML may be a good choice to markup the structure and formatting of a technical document. That doesn't make it a good human readable and writable format.
- macintux 3y ago
  Notice that the description didn’t say it was a good format in that regard.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Aha, very true! It is human readable and writeable after all, just not very pleasant.
- joshmarinacci 3y ago
  The ideal interface would be a WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) word processor like app that let you edit the markup visually, but using a semantic representation rather than strict WYSIWYG. Thus you can write without having to know too much of the syntax, but still be producing strict markup. I recall such editors existing about 20 years ago. I guess the market for XML tool died.
  - chrisweekly 3y ago
    You just described Obsidian. Its UX atop .md files is simply amazing.
    - d4mi3n 3y ago
      Logseq is another contender in this vertical: https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/
  - teleforce 3y ago
    For maths and scientific publications with WYSIWYG approach check TeXmacs: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html Please note that despite the name it has nothing to do with TeX or Emacs.
- j45 3y ago
  No reason tooling can’t help with the reading and writing. The computer is supposed to read xml, not people. XML isn’t my first choice most days but there exist cases where it still readily flexes past other option no matter how popular.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Yeah, Markdown's not really a print document format. But LMLs (lightweight markup) don't begin and end with Markdown. Asciidoc, on the other hand . . I've written aircrew flight checklists, component maintenance manuals, typescript developer documentation, illustrated parts catalogues, maintenance handbooks, operation guides, and a good-old-fashioned novelette in Asciidoc. Last few years with VSC. It's fast as hell. I got Asciidoc include for re-use, I got Asciidoc conditionals, VSC snippets, I got a billion other toys like textql, diagrams, wireviz. And yeah yeah yeah, I know, it's cheating: Asciidoc is DocBook, DocBook is XML. Except Asciidoc's not XML. Asciidoc renders in Chrome/Firefox/Edge extensions, Ruby, JS, Python, and it exports to DocBook, LaTeX, PDF, HTML5, ePub, MOBI, MSO via DocToolChain or Pckr and, well, hell, bring in Pandoc if you want something else. When it comes to the Asciidoc tools, I can go from bare metal to full-up publishing environment in ten minutes. And how do I render DocBook again? Oh, the XML pipelines. Those pipelines. Schemas breaking XML spec[1], "XML-aware" diff/merge, whitespace[2], sneaky goddamn proprietary entities[3], namespaces, 1NF, computability[4], charset, semantic-less, hierarchy fetishism, etc etc etc blabbity blabbity blah. I just realized this post sounds really frickin' angry, and I want to take a line here to say that I love all ya'll, but XML publishing has left some scars, and I'm sorry about that. [1] "Leading whitespace in attributes? CHARMING" [2] No such thing as "officially normalized" when it comes to XML whitespace, which means no lines, no tabs, no spaces. [3] Goddamn REVBARS [4] Ah, infinite arbitrary nesting, what a perfect fit for natural language
- bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
  +1 asciidoc is where it's at. Given its strengths and similarity to markdown, I wonder why it hasn't taken off to the same extent.
  - mdaniel 3y ago
    the most famous example I know of: https://docs.atlas.oreilly.com/writing_in_asciidoc.html https://docs.atlas.oreilly.com/writing_in_asciidoc.html
  - CJefferson 3y ago
    Honestly, the first guide that comes up when you Google, asciidoctor, is bad. I just checked if it had improved and it starts talking about "If you want to enable ad-hoc quotes substitution, then assign the macros value to subs and use the inline pass macro.", without defining assigning, and before I've been told how to put in a header. I got annoyed around there and went back to markdown.
eviks 3y ago
Poor design is also design And markdown isn't the only alternative to the ugliness of XML

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

XML may be a good choice to markup the structure and formatting of a technical document. That doesn't make it a good human readable and writable format.

macintux 3y ago
Notice that the description didn’t say it was a good format in that regard.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Aha, very true! It is human readable and writeable after all, just not very pleasant.
joshmarinacci 3y ago
The ideal interface would be a WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) word processor like app that let you edit the markup visually, but using a semantic representation rather than strict WYSIWYG. Thus you can write without having to know too much of the syntax, but still be producing strict markup. I recall such editors existing about 20 years ago. I guess the market for XML tool died.
- chrisweekly 3y ago
  You just described Obsidian. Its UX atop .md files is simply amazing.
  - d4mi3n 3y ago
    Logseq is another contender in this vertical: https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/
- teleforce 3y ago
  For maths and scientific publications with WYSIWYG approach check TeXmacs: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html Please note that despite the name it has nothing to do with TeX or Emacs.
j45 3y ago
No reason tooling can’t help with the reading and writing. The computer is supposed to read xml, not people. XML isn’t my first choice most days but there exist cases where it still readily flexes past other option no matter how popular.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

Yeah, Markdown's not really a print document format. But LMLs (lightweight markup) don't begin and end with Markdown. Asciidoc, on the other hand . . I've written aircrew flight checklists, component maintenance manuals, typescript developer documentation, illustrated parts catalogues, maintenance handbooks, operation guides, and a good-old-fashioned novelette in Asciidoc. Last few years with VSC. It's fast as hell. I got Asciidoc include for re-use, I got Asciidoc conditionals, VSC snippets, I got a billion other toys like textql, diagrams, wireviz. And yeah yeah yeah, I know, it's cheating: Asciidoc is DocBook, DocBook is XML. Except Asciidoc's not XML. Asciidoc renders in Chrome/Firefox/Edge extensions, Ruby, JS, Python, and it exports to DocBook, LaTeX, PDF, HTML5, ePub, MOBI, MSO via DocToolChain or Pckr and, well, hell, bring in Pandoc if you want something else. When it comes to the Asciidoc tools, I can go from bare metal to full-up publishing environment in ten minutes. And how do I render DocBook again? Oh, the XML pipelines. Those pipelines. Schemas breaking XML spec[1], "XML-aware" diff/merge, whitespace[2], sneaky goddamn proprietary entities[3], namespaces, 1NF, computability[4], charset, semantic-less, hierarchy fetishism, etc etc etc blabbity blabbity blah. I just realized this post sounds really frickin' angry, and I want to take a line here to say that I love all ya'll, but XML publishing has left some scars, and I'm sorry about that. [1] "Leading whitespace in attributes? CHARMING" [2] No such thing as "officially normalized" when it comes to XML whitespace, which means no lines, no tabs, no spaces. [3] Goddamn REVBARS [4] Ah, infinite arbitrary nesting, what a perfect fit for natural language

bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
+1 asciidoc is where it's at. Given its strengths and similarity to markdown, I wonder why it hasn't taken off to the same extent.
- mdaniel 3y ago
  the most famous example I know of: https://docs.atlas.oreilly.com/writing_in_asciidoc.html https://docs.atlas.oreilly.com/writing_in_asciidoc.html
- CJefferson 3y ago
  Honestly, the first guide that comes up when you Google, asciidoctor, is bad. I just checked if it had improved and it starts talking about "If you want to enable ad-hoc quotes substitution, then assign the macros value to subs and use the inline pass macro.", without defining assigning, and before I've been told how to put in a header. I got annoyed around there and went back to markdown.

eviks 3y ago

Poor design is also design And markdown isn't the only alternative to the ugliness of XML