[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?

• From: Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:35:27 +0100

On 15/09/2021 12:02, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> XML has had parts rattling around from the beginning despite the best
> efforts of its creators.
> 
> Then we piled more and more parts on it.
> 
> Markup doesn't need that much work.

Some does, some doesn't. I think we pretty much got most things right,
although many of the subsequently written DTDs and schemas didn't (at
the beginning) implement some of the most fundamental and obvious things
authors need. From where I sit, XML does what's needed, and does it
well. Others will have different requirements (eg DITA). I am not
convinced that the campaign for "simplification" of XML is a viable
candidate for our attention.

Peter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: Arjun Ray <arayq2@gmail.com>

• References:
  • What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
  • Re: What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>