4 ms·
First, you're describing the parsing side, while the message I was replying to claimed that it can't be written by hand. Anyhow, schemas, XInclude and even nam
by g-b-r 9mo ago
First, you're describing the parsing side, while the message I was replying to claimed that it can't be written by hand.
Anyhow, schemas, XInclude and even namespaces are what I was referring to as additional languages of tools.
In your application you use them if you want, they're not really part of XML.
Of course even a parser for plain XML is a lot more complex than one for JSON, but people usually use libraries for that...
In any case, in your application nothing prevents you from using a dumbed-down version of XML, without entities, white space handling, and even only looking at elements and attributes; there were some applications that did that.
That already gives you a format that's easier to read and write manually than json.
I had more to say about "attributes versus child elements", but it's taking me too much time, I'll probably do that tomorrow.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 9mo agoI think I understand your point. I only brought parsing into play to illustrate that XML is complicated, not because it's my general focus. I wouldn't classify namespaces, etc. as additional languages and tools, but that's beside the point. > in your application nothing prevents you from using a dumbed-down version of XML That's right. And if XML were exactly that, then there wouldn't be so many people frustrated with it. Unfortunately, in a professional work context, you don't always have control over whether it stays within this manageable subset. Sometimes the less pleasant aspects simply come into play, and then you have to deal with the whole complicated mess.