=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[xml-dev]_The_Goals_of_XML_at_25,_and_the_one_thing_that_X?==?UTF-8?Q?ML_now_needs?=
... and don't forget that XML also inherited all the baggage of schema, RDF, etc. etc. which seriously skewed perceptions, even though it was guilt by association.
I think I've seen the 'stack' of schemas, RPC mechanisms, service meshes/registries, etc. reinvented 4 or 5 times over the last 25 years. There's a degree of irreducible complexity that people don't seem to want to deal with there.
I've often thought it'd be interesting to try and push XML back into the browser. It's a shame that most of the word processing tools have moved away from named styles as a primary formatting mechanism which might make that easier.
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:52:27 +0200, Marcus Reichardt wrote:
| I guess the fixation on JSON by the XML community is because JSON ate
| XML's lunch in lucrative enterprise integration, so to speak.
Bingo.
| The point, though, never has been generic data representation as such,
| but publishing information as digital text via markup.
Unfortunately, much of the early "marketing" of XML (this is going
back two decades or more) was aimed at the former use case [*], data
interchange. Text interchange, XML's original calling, fell by the
wayside.
[*] as well as the alleged ease of integration with Java (the other
hot ticket of the time), never mind that generating XML in Java code
involved lots of backslash escaping, which for that matter JSON wasn't
any better at...
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
