> I think it would make sense for the XML community to go back one step
> and attempt to analyze what had gone wrong rather than dogmatically
> insist on XML being just perfect. Even James Clark started to question
> parts of XML (such as namespaces and the lack of "</>").
There’s lots of evidence[1] going back to the turn of the millennium
that the XML community is aware of the shortcomings in XML. I thought a
lot[2] about how to improve it back in the day, but it’s hard to imagine
fixing any of those things now.
All of the proposals to fix XML would involve some degree of backwards
incompatibility. In a world where DTDs are still being actively
developed for globally significant XML vocabularies, as far as I can
tell, the perceived benefits of a “fixed XML” don’t come *anywhere near*
justifying the perceived costs of backwards incompatible changes.
Alas.
Be seeing you,
norm
[1] https://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/10/xml20
[2] https://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/20/xml20
--
Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
https://norm.tovey-walsh.com/
> True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of
> justice.--Martin Luther King
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature