3 ms·
XML being overspec'd is good, IMO, because we get things like xpath, XLSX, schemas, etc very easily. It would be fine if people just use libraries for these. I
by preg_match 1mo ago
XML being overspec'd is good, IMO, because we get things like xpath, XLSX, schemas, etc very easily. It would be fine if people just use libraries for these. I mean, I certainly wouldn't roll a JSON parser by hand either, even if it is easier.
XML just looks nasty, but IMO not worse than JSON. JSON is not easy to read, because brackets suck for deep nesting. XML nesting is 100x easier to read, because the closing tags tell you exactly what is closing.
- vkazanov 1mo agoSure, a careful spec is always great. In xml's they clearly overdid it. all the formats/substandards you listed... there is just not a single library that supports all of the standard. And because implementations are so different, most users just stick to a single C library. That library, btw, is also incomplete and undermaintained. So that's the problem with complex standards: they are hard to implement and support. Nobody does this, unless it is a business-critical matter.