11–20 of 153 posts
Doesn't instill confidence in that content.
fyi: XML was subset by W3C (the SGML "extended review board" specifically) from SGML to become the generic syntax for web vocabularies (replace HTML syntax by XTHML, and define new SVG, MathML vocabularies). Didn't work out on the web, though.
https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/6568.html
SBE (Simple Binary Encoding) also makes some interesting performance claims.
My pet peeve with both protobuf and capnp is the lack of an option type; they seem to be designed for languages with type systems that include null, rather than more modern languages like Rust or Kotlin.
Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
S-expressions are the most logical representation of data structures. “CAR”/“CDR” are not a part of the expression syntax, so this argument against them won’t matter.
> Not sure anyone really knows how XML happened. It’s basically the W3C’s fault, I think? Doesn't instill confidence in that content. fyi: XML was subset by W3C (the SGML "extended review board" specifically) from SGML to become the generic syntax for web vocabularies (replace HTML syntax by XTHML, and define new SVG, MathML vocabularies). Didn't work out on the web, though.
It is pretty clear by the language used that it's all written tongue in cheek.
Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
So there's a ton of utterly crap XML applications out there with no rhyme or reason, and these crap XML enterprise apps are most developer's understanding of "real world XML". Similar to how terrible C++ code being all over the place is making people hate C++ the language.
-------
XML can be used very well however: its use in Jabber / XMPP is clear and concise. XML Namespaces are needed due to the extensions of XMPP, and various programs can interact with the protocol. Specifications are clear, the ability to "stream" data is proven, different parser strategies have been implemented. Its clear that XML in this instance works, and works pretty well.
[0] https://github.com/edn-format/edn
[1] https://github.com/cognitect/transit-format
[2] https://github.com/Datomic/fressian/wiki
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JArZqMqsaB0&ab_channel=Cloju...
Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
Everyone loves to hate on XML just because it can be verbose and some of the WS* protocols are complicated. But as a human-readable format it’s no harder to read or parse than JSON and legacy application support is orders of magnitude better than JSON. I’m not saying we should all use it but we shouldn’t be hating it either.
Also worth looking are EDN [0] (mentioned briefly under S-Expressions), Transit [1] and Fressian [2][3]. [0] https://github.com/edn-format/edn [1] https://github.com/cognitect/transit-format [2] https://github.com/Datomic/fressian/wiki [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JArZqMqsaB0&ab_channel=Cloju...