On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:55 AM Stephen D Green <
stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
"Now that XML exists, there is no driver for anything better. JSON was a happy accident so that does not count."
Your kidding, right?
I don't think we reached a steady state of technology in 1997, and nothing has changed in the subsequent 25 years that could possibly make it worthwhile to revisit the goals and engineering decisions of XML? No Big Data? No 3G/4G/5G? No GPUs, cheap SSDs, SSE/AVX, etc? No ubiquitous Unicode? No HTML 5? No cloud computing? No ubiquity of XML-in-ZIP formats? No Git? No failure of Web Services? No ubiquitous availability of interpreted languages with eval() functions? No REDIS? No XSD and its disappointments? Etc. etc.
And how can JSON not count? If something does not have drivers for its success, surely it would not have succeeded?
It seems that many Big Data systems read in a dialect of JSON, with one JSON "file" per line. They scan for the appropriate line then read in the record. How is that not an example of the kind of non-ephemeral data that we thought XML should be good at? XML at W3C stopped responding to drivers; diverted first by giantism of the data-binding crowd then by the dwarfism of the sugar-free crowd.
(What JSON showed was that the driver was for a header-free markup language with richer delimiters that allowed direct specification of datatypes through syntax, trivially converted to conventional datatypes and structures: not richer but more complex, nor simpler but less rich, but rich and simple: more expressive syntax.)
A standard can breed or it can go into palliative care.
