Am 23.02.2012 19:04, schrieb nemesis:
> The trouble with the whole xml thing is that it's just another
> enterprisey BS to grind CPUs idle times. You need an xml document, an
> xml document describing the structure of the previous document, yet
> another xml document to describe how to style the original document
> itens, perhaps a xml document describing how to transform your xml
> document into another xml document. It's an insanely verbose and
> homogeneous pile of human and machine barely readable crap.
>
> People resented it and thus insist on saner formats, such as CSS, JSON
> and real programming languages rather than a shitload of xml abstraction
> layers, tools and java frameworks.

Businesses do use it quite a lot for data exchange.

But yes, XML as a mere replacement for HTML is a rather silly thing 
(except in its incarnation as XHTML); its legitimate ecologic niche on 
the web is on the server side (if anywhere), and its native habitat is 
actually totally somewhere else.

In some sense, XML is today's CSV: A generic file or data stream format 
a human /can/ create, read and/or modify with an ASCII text editor, but 
that still follows certain clear-cut rules that it can also be evaluated 
by software; and actually just a meta-format, in the sense that the 
content of the individual data fields needs to be agreed upon separately.

Post a reply to this message