>
1. I think attributes absolutely should exist. They're great for describing metadata related to the tag: e.g. element ID, language, datatype, source annotation, namespacing. They add little in complexity.No, they're barely adequate for those purposes. And you could (and if you have a XSD you probably should) still replace them with elements. If you argue that you can't, then you're arguing that JSON does not function. You can just inline metadata along side data. That works just fine. That's the thing about metadata. It's data!
You don't need attributes. Having worked in information systems for 25 years now, they are the most heavily, heavily, heavily misused feature of XML and they are essentially always wrong.
Because when someone represents data like this:
90034
Anthony
Perkins
4302
You can write a XSD with the full set of rules for schema validation.
On the other hand, if you do this:
Well, now you're a bit stuck. You can make the XSD look at basic data types, and that's it. You can never use complex types. You can never use multiple values if you need it, or if you do you'll have to make your attribute a delimited string. You can never use complex types. You can't use order. You're limiting your ability to extend or advance things.
That's the problem with XML. It's so flexible it lets developers be stupid, while also claiming strictness and correctness as goals.
> 2. The point of a close tag with a name is to make it unambiguous what it's trying to close off.
Sure, but the fact that closing tags in the proper order is is mandatory, you're not actually including anything at all. The only thing you're doing is introducing trivial syntax errors.
Because the truth is that this is 100% unambiguous in XML because the rules changed:
90034
Anthony
Perkins
4302
The reason SGML had a problem with the generic close tag was because SGML didn't require a closing tag at all. That was a problem It didn't have ``. It let you say `...` or `...`.
Named closing tags had more of a point when we were actually writing XML by hand and didn't have text editors that could find the open and close tags for you, but that is solved. And now we have syntax highlighting and hierarchical code folding on any text editor, nevermind dedicated XML editors.
> 3. As far as schema support, it seems to me that JSON Schema is well-established and perfectly cromulent
Then my guess is that you have worked exclusively in the tech industry for customers that are also exclusively in the tech industry. If you have worked in any other business with any other group of organizations, you would know that the rest of the world is absolute chaos. I think I've seen 3 examples of a published JSON Schema, and hundreds that do not.
> 4. As far as tabular data, neither XML nor JSON were built for efficient tabular data representation, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they're clunky at this. Use the right tool for the job.
No, I think you're looking at what the format was intended to do 25 years ago and trying to claim that that should not be extended or improved ever. You're ignoring what it's actually being used for.
Unless you're going to make data queries return large tabular data sets to the user interface as more or less SQLite or DuckDB databases so the browser can freely manipulate them for the user... you're kind of stuck with XML or JSON or CSV. All of which suck for different reasons.