4 ms·
This is performance art, right? The very first bullet point it starts with is extolling the merits of XSD. Even back in the day when XML was huge, XSD was widel
by mkozlows 9mo ago
This is performance art, right? The very first bullet point it starts with is extolling the merits of XSD. Even back in the day when XML was huge, XSD was widely recognized as a monstrosity and a boondoggle -- the real XMLheads were trying to make RELAX NG happen, but XSD got jammed through because it was needed for all those monstrous WS-* specs.
XML did some good things for its day, but no, we abandoned it for very good reasons.
- froh 9mo agoxslt was a stripped down dsssl in xml syntax. dsssl was the scheme based domain specific "document style semantics and and specification language" the syntax change was in the era of general lisp syntax bashing. but to xml syntax? really? that was so surreal to me.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- WorldMaker 9mo agoAlso as someone else pointed out the same complaints that JSON Schema "isn't in the standard, it's a separate standard" apply to XSD. It is still a different standard even though during the height of XML mania it sometimes seemed like XSD was inseperable. XML did have DTD baked in, and maybe the author meant DTD in that section, but that was even worse than XSD (and again both were why RELAX NG happened).
- PantaloonFlames 8mo agoXSD was (is) not so easy to adopt, but I don't agree that it's a monstrosity. Schema are complicated. XSD is a response to that reality. The XML ecosystem is messy. But people don't need to adopt everything. Ignore Relax-NG, ignore DTD, use namespaces sparingly, adopt conventions around NOT using attributes. It generally works quite well. It's a challenge to get comfortable with XSD but once that happens, it's not a monstrosity. Similarly, XSLT. It requires a different way of thinking, and once you get that, you're productive.