4 ms·
This is less about hating on XML and more about not reinventing the wheel. I quite like XML. Things like xpath make working with it, or getting data from it mu
by account-5 3y ago
This is less about hating on XML and more about not reinventing the wheel.
I quite like XML. Things like xpath make working with it, or getting data from it much easier than JSON; though I love jq syntax and can't wait until it starts being incorporated into languages. I don't even mind xslt provided it's not being over used.
- masklinn 3y ago> I quite like XML. Things like xpath make working with it XPath is great. 1.0 anyway, after that everything but the new functions was nonsense. But do note: XPath is not an xml dialect, it’s a non-XML DSL being applied to documents.
- account-5 3y agoThat makes sense about xpath not being an XML dialect. Its much easier than .NextSibling.ParentNode... etc etc. I always try to go for the path of least resistant.
- masklinn 3y ago> That makes sense about xpath not being an XML dialect. But the point is that it follows TFA's advice: while it's a DSL for working with XML, it's not an XML language. Wish that XSLT had been the same, it could have been so much better. > Its much easier than .NextSibling.ParentNode... etc etc. I don't think that has any relation. Also it does look a lot like what you wrote: ./following-sibling::*[position()=1]/parent::* even if you use the various shortcuts, since there is none for the next sibling or following siblings: ./following-sibling::*[1]/..
- unwind 3y agoTim Bray [1] is a co-author of the original XML spec so he is probably not hating on XML so much, no. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bray https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bray
- account-5 3y agoYeah should have made it clear I was referring to a lot of the comments in this thread.
- marcosdumay 3y agoThe article makes no point about XML at all, it's really "don't invent languages, unless it's your last hope".