The Future of XML

An anonymous reader writes "How will you use XML in years to come? The wheels of progress turn slowly, but turn they do. The outline of XML's future is becoming clear. The exact timeline is a tad uncertain, but where XML is going isn't. XML's future lies with the Web, and more specifically with Web publishing. 'Word processors, spreadsheets, games, diagramming tools, and more are all migrating into the browser. This trend will only accelerate in the coming year as local storage in Web browsers makes it increasingly possible to work offline. But XML is still firmly grounded in Web 1.0 publishing, and that's still very important.'"

Comments

"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[Ant P.]

Sparingly. JSON is just plain better, and doesn't inflict an enterprisey mindset on anyone that tries to use it.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[DragonWriter]

Sparingly. JSON is just plain better, and doesn't inflict an enterprisey mindset on anyone that tries to use it.

JSON/YAML is/are better (not considering, of course, the variety and maturity of available tools; but then, perhaps, you don't always need most of what is out there in XML tools, either) for lots of things (mostly, the kinds of things TFA notes XML wasn't designed for and often isn't the best choice for),things that aren't marked-up text. Where you actually want an extensible language for text-centric markup, rather than a structured format for interchange of something that isn't marked-up text, XML seems to be a pretty good choice. Of course, for some reason, that seems to be a minority of the uses of XML.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[MagikSlinger]

Sparingly. JSON is just plain better, and doesn't inflict an enterprisey mindset on anyone that tries to use it.

JSON is inflicting Javascript on everyone. There are other programming languages out there. Also, XML can painlessly create meta-documents made up of other people's XML documents.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[DragonWriter]

JSON is inflicting Javascript on everyone.

No, it really doesn't, but if "JavaScript" in the name bothers you, you might feel better with YAML.

There are other programming languages out there.

And there are JSON and/or YAML libraries for quite a lot of them. So what?

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[MagikSlinger]

JSON is inflicting Javascript on everyone.

No, it really doesn't, but if "JavaScript" in the name bothers you, you might feel better with YAML.

No, it wouldn't because JSON is bare bones data. It's simply nested hash tables, arrays and strings. XML does much more than that. XML can represent a lot of information in a simple, easy-to-understand format. JSON strips it out for speed & efficiency. Which sort of gets into the point I did want to make but was too impatient to explain: JSON is good where JSON is best, and XML is good where XML is best. I dislike the one-uber-alles arguments because it's ignoring other situations and their needs.

There are other programming languages out there.

And there are JSON and/or YAML libraries for quite a lot of them. So what?

Would you like to live in a world of S-expressions? The LISP people would point out there are libraries to read/write S-expressions, so why use JSON? The answer of course is that we want more than simply nesting lists of strings. We want our markup languages to fit our requirements, not the other way around. And saying "JSON for Everything", which the original poster did was... silly.

My problems with JSON are:

• No schema: XML Schema not only makes it easier to unit test, but it can be fed into tools that can do useful things like automatic creation of Java classes and code to read/write. Does JSON have anything like that? Of course not, because it would defeat JSON's purpose: easy Javascript data transmission.
• Expressability: With XML, I can create a model that fits my logical model of the data where I use attributes to augment the data in the child elements. Doing that in JSON is a kludge with a hash-table to represent an element which can't be easily converted into a graph for easy understanding.
• Diversity: I use GML in my day job. A lot. I can easily set up an object conversion rule with Jakarta Digester that I can painlessly drop into future projects without modification. That's the power of namespaces. I can build an XML document using tags from a dozen different schema, and then feed it to another application that only looks for the tags it cares about.
• XPath. 'Nuff said. Ok, one thing: this should have replaced SAX/DOM years ago.

JSON is great for AJAX where XML is clunky and a little bit slower (my own speed tests hasn't shown there's a huge hit, but it is significant). XML is great for document-type data like formatted documents or electronic data interchange between heavy-weight processes. My point was that the original poster's JSON is everything was narrow-minded, and that XML answers a very specific need. There are tonnes of mark-up languages out there, and I think XML is a great machine-based language. I hate it when humans have to write XML to configure something though. That really ticks me off. But that's the point: there should not be one mark-up language to rule them all. A mark-up language for every purpose.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[aoteoroa]

Hear! Hear!

One file (format) will not rule them all.

XML is good if you want to design a communication protocol between your software, and some other unknown program.

JSON is much lighter. Far less kilobits needed to transfer the same information so when performance is important and you control everything then use JSON.

When it comes to humans editing config files I find traditional ini files, or .properties easier to read and perfectly suitable in most cases.

Writing more complex, relational data to disk? Sqlite often solves the problem quickly.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[frank_adrian314159]

Would you like to live in a world of S-expressions?

If you're giving me a choice... why yes, please! Where can I get one of these worlds you're talking about?

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[jhol13]

You forgot XSLT.

It is extremely powerful tool, I once (ages ago) made a pure XSLT implementation to convert XML into C. Whith a CSS the XSLT was even browser/human viewable (the output was somewhat similar to the C program output).

I do not think JSON can do that.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[CoughDropAddict]

I'm so depressed. You represent an entire generation of programmers who can't figure out the difference between marked-up text and data, and why mark-up languages suck so bad for data interchange.

Pop quiz. Here's an excerpt of GML from that page you linked to.

<gml:coordinates>100,200</gml:coordinates>

Do the contents of this node represent:

1. the text string "100,200"
2. the number 100200 (with a customary comma for nice formatting)
3. the number 100.2 (hey, that's the way that the crazy Europeans do it)
4. a tuple of two numbers: 100 and 200

"Obviously it's two numbers, they're coordinates" you may say. But such things are not "obvious" to an XML parser. If you're an XML parser the answer is (1): it's a simple text string. So to get to the real data you have to parse that text string again to split on a comma, and to turn the two resulting text strings into numbers. Note this is a completely separate parser and is completely outside the XML data model, so all your fancy schema validation, xpath, etc. are useless to access data at this level.

Why all this pain? Because XML simply has no way to say "this is a list of things" or "this is a number."

Sure, you can approximate such things. You could write something like:

<gml:coordinates>
    <gml:coordinateX>100</gml:coordinateX>
    <gml:coordinateY>200</gml:coordinateY>
</gml:coordinates>

But the fact remains that even though you may intuitively understand this to be two coordinates when you look at it (and at least you can select the coordinates individually with xpath in this example, but they're still strings, not numbers) to XML this is still nothing but a tree of nodes.

Did you catch that? A tree of nodes. You're taking a concept which is logically a pair of integers, and encoding it in a format that's representing it in a tree of nodes. Specifically, that tree looks something like this:

elementNode name=gml:coordinates
\-> textNode, text="\n " *
\-> elementNode name=gml:coordinateX
    \-> textNode text="100"
\-> textNode, text="\n " *
\-> elementNode name=gml:coordinateY
    \-> textNode, text="200"
\-> textNode, text="\n" *

(*: yep, it keeps all that whitespace that you only intended for formatting. XML is a text markup language, so all text anywhere in the document is significant to the parser.)

So let's recap. Using XML, we've taken a structure which is logically just a pair of integers and encoded it as a tree of 7 nodes, three of which are meaningless whitespace that was only put there for formatting, and even after all this XML has no clue that what we're dealing with is a pair of integers.

Now let's try this example in JSON:

{"coordinates": [100, 200]}

JSON knows two things that your fancy shmancy XML parser will never know: that 100 and 200 are numbers, and that they are two elements of an array (which might be more appropriately thought of as a "tuple" in this context). It's smart enough to know that the whitespace is not significant, it doesn't build this complex and meaningless node tree; it just lets you express, directly and succinctly, the data you are trying to encode.

That's because JSON is a data format, and XML is a marked up text format. But we're suffering from the fact that no one realized this ten years ago, and compensated for the parity mismatch by layering mountains of horribly complex software on top of XML instead of just using something that is actually good at data interchange.

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[dkf]

My problems with JSON are:

• No schema: XML Schema not only makes it easier to unit test, but it can be fed into tools that can do useful things like automatic creation of Java classes and code to read/write. Does JSON have anything like that? Of course not, because it would defeat JSON's purpose: easy Javascript data transmission.

While I hate XML Schema, it's still better for many uses than just throwing random crap on the wire and hoping that the other end can make sense of it. And no, throwing some javascript on the wire as well doesn't help that much. I want the computer to do stuff with the data without having to ship a program specifically for the purpose; after all, I can't think of all the purposes for the data right now and I want to let others come up with new cool stuff too.

• XPath. 'Nuff said. Ok, one thing: this should have replaced SAX/DOM years ago.

I use a DOM library that includes XPath support so that I can simply do a search starting at any node. It makes working with DOM much more pleasant.

I hate it when humans have to write XML to configure something though. That really ticks me off. Simpler stuff works quite well when you've got configuration of software from a single vendor, but when you've got to combine stuff from lots of sources, XML stops being quite such a bad choice. (If only people who edit config files would actually demonstrate an ability to write well-formed XML though. Idiots...)

Re:"How will you use XML in years to come?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing the merits of isolated XML, while in fact it is a collective technology. Yes, the XML itself is not strongly typed, that is why you have SCHEMA (formerly DTD). Using XML-SCHEMA (coincidently also written in XML) you DO get a strongly typed document where you can say that a tag can only contain one letter followed by 12 digits or whatever. Then you can use XSL to transform the document, knowing with certainty every single bit of the format.

The only difference here is that XML separates these 3 (markup, validation, transformation) operations, since you might find situations where you don't need all of them.

You know the saying

[Anonymous Coward]

XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it.

I don't understand...

[ilovegeorgebush]

I don't get it. We can argue the merits of data exchange formats 'till we're blue in the face; yet I cannot see why XML is so popular. For the majority of applications that use it, it's overboard. Yes, it's easier on the eye, but ultimately how often do you have to play with the XML your CAD software uses?

I'm a programmer, just like the rest of you here, so I'm quite used to having to write a parser here or there, or fixing an issue or two in an ant script. The thing that puzzles me, is why it's used so much on the web. XML is bulky, and when designed badly it can be far too complex; this all adds to bandwidth and processing on the client (think AJAX), so I'm not seeing why anyone would want to use it. Formats like JSON are just as usable, and not to mention more lightweight. Where's the gain?

Re:I don't understand...

[SpaceHamster]

My best stab at the popularity:

1. Looks a lot like HTML. "Oh, it has angle brackets, I know this!"
2. Inertia.
3. Has features that make it a good choice for business: schemas and validation, transforms, namespaces, a type system.
4. Inertia.

There just isn't that much need to switch. Modern parsers/hardware make the slowness argument moot, and everyone knows how to work with it.

As an interchange format with javascript (and other dynamically typed languages) it is sub-optimal for a number of reasons, and so an alternative, JSON has developed which fills that particular niche. But when I sit down to right yet another line of business app, my default format is going to be XML, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Re:I don't understand...

[El Cubano]

For the majority of applications that use it, it's overboard.

You mean like this?

Re:I don't understand...

[GodfatherofSoul]

XML gives you a parsable standard on two levels; generic XML syntax and specific to your protocol via schemas. It's verbose enough to allow by-hand manual editing while the syntax will catch any errors save semantic errors you'll likely have. It's also a little more versatile as far as the syntax goes. Yes, there are less verbose parsing syntaxes out there, but you always seem to lose something when it comes to manual viewing or editing.

Plus, as far as writing parsers, why burn the time when there are so many tools for XML out there? It's a design choice I suppose like every other one; i.e. what are you losing/gaining by DIYing? Personally, I love XML and regret that it hasn't taken off more. Especially in the area of network protocols. People have been trying to shove everything into an HTML pipe, when XML over the much underrated BEEP is a far more versatile. There are costs, though as you've already mentioned.

Re:I don't understand...

[machineghost]

The "bulkiness" of XML is also it's strength: XML can be used to markup almost any data imaginable. Now it's true that for most simple two-party exchanges, a simpler format (like comma separated values or YAML or something) would require less characters, and would thus save disk space, transmit faster, etc.

However, the modern programming age is all about sacrificing performance for convenience (this is why virtually no one is using C or C++ to make web apps, and almost everyone is using a significantly poorer performing language like Python or Ruby). We've got powerful computers with tons of RAM and hard drive space, and high-speed internet connections that can transmit vast amounts of data in mere seconds; why waste (valuable programmer) time and energy over-optimizing everything?

Instead, developers choose the option that will make their lives easier. XML is widely known, easily understood, and is human readable. I can send an XML document, without any schema or documentation, to another developer and they'll be able to "grok it". There's also a ton of tools out there for working with XML; if someone sends me a random XML document, I can see it syntax colored in Eclipse or my browser. If someone sends me an XML schema, I can use JAXB to generate Java classes to interact with it. If I need to reformat/convert ANY XML document, I can just whip up an XSLT for it and I'm done.

So yes, other formats offer some benefits. But XML's universality (which does require a bit of bulkiness) makes it a great choice for most types of data one would like to markup and/or transmit.

P.S. JSON is just as usable? Try writing a schema to validate it ... ok I admit, that wasn't so hard, just some Javascript right? But now you have to write a new batch of code to validate the next type of JSON you use. And another for the next, and so on. With XML, you have a choice of not one but four different schema formats; once you learn to use one of them, you can describe a validation schema far more quickly than you ever could in Javascript.

Same deal with transformations: if you want to alter your JSON data in a consistent way, you have to again write custom code every time. Sure XSLT has a learning curve, but once you master it you can accomplish in a few lines of code what any other language would need tens or even hundreds of lines to do.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. We can argue the merits of data exchange formats 'till we're blue in the face; yet I cannot see why XML is so popular.

Because it's a standard that everyone (even reluctantly) can agree on.

Because there are well-debugged libraries for reading, writing and manipulating it.

Because (as a last resort) text is easy to manipulate with scripting languages like perl and python.

Because if verbosity is a problem, text compresses very well.

Re:I don't understand...

[Xtifr]

Like a lot of things, XML is popular because it's popular. Parsing is done with libraries, so programmers don't have to see or care how much overhead is involved, and it's well-known and well-understood, so it's easy to find people who are familiar with it. Every programmer and his dog knows the basics. It's easy to cobble up some in a text editor for testing purposes. You can hand it off to some guy in a completely separate division without worrying that he's going to find it particularly confusing. And you can work with it in pretty much any modern programming language without having to worry about the messy details. It's the path of least resistance. It may not be good, but it's frequently good enough, and that's usually the bottom line.

I mean, yeah, when I was a kid, we all worked in hand-optimized C and assembler, and tried to pack useful information into each bit of storage, but systems were a lot smaller and a lot more expensive back then. These days, I write perl or python scripts that spit out forty bytes of XML to encode a single boolean flag, and it doesn't even faze me. Welcome to the 21st century. :)

Re:I don't understand...

[batkiwi]

XML IS:
-Easily validated
-Easily parsed
-Easily compressed (in transit or stored)
-Human readable in case of emergency
-Easily extendable

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

For one, it has off-the-shelf parsers and validation tools. Parsing XML is, at it's hardest, a matter of writing a SAX parser. XML binding APIs make things even easier. The standardized validation tools also make it great for ensuring that people in charge of generating the data are using the form expected by those receiving the data.

Our biggest usage is in our customer data feeds. These feeds are often 1GB+ when compressed. Since switching to an XML format from a tab-delimited format, we've been able to give our customers an XSD to validate the file before sending it to us. The result has been far fewer round trips between us and our customers before receiving an acceptable feed. As you can probably imagine, fewer round trips is a very good thing when each round trip involves sending 1GB+ of data over the internet.

Also, gzip and other compression methods do very well with XML files...to the point where the difference between a compressed XML file and a compressed JSON or other formatting of the same data is pretty minimal. So your point about AJAX applications isn't particularly relevant once you've enabled gzip content coding.

The human-readable benefit is more of a nice side effect rather than a must have, though it does come in quite handy when debugging.

So you might want to ask yourself why not use it? What are the drawbacks of your CAD program using XML to store its files, especially if it does something like OpenOffice does by compressing them. Why not take advantage of tools that make it simple to parse information? If it's just the "XML is bulky" complaint, that's basically been addressed.

Re:I don't understand...

[Xtifr]

From an academic viewpoint, it probably matters. From a point of view of trying to get the job done...not so much. I studied the performance and efficiency of a wide variety of sort algorithms when I was in school, but nowadays, I generally just call some library to do my sorting for me. It may not be quite as efficient for the machine to use some random, generic sort, but for me, it's the difference between a few seconds to type "sort" vs. a few hours to code and debug a sort routine that is probably, at best, only a few percent faster.

XML is, in many cases (including mine), the path of least resistance. It's not particularly fast or efficient, but it's simple and quick and I don't have to spend hours documenting my formats for the dozens of other people in the company who have to use my data. Many of whom are probably not programmers by Dewar and Schonberg's definition, but who still do valuable work for the company.

Re:I don't understand...

[Otto]

-Easily compressed (in transit or stored)

Which just means that it has lots of redundancy. Or, as one might call it, bloat. Test question: Which is quicker?
1. Spending a few hours coding your formats in some binary format making maximum use of all the bits.
2. Spending a few minutes writing code to send your internal data structure to a library that will serialize it into XML and then running the XML through a generic compression routine (if space/speed actually makes any difference to your particular application).

Consider the question in both the short and the long term. Also consider that you're paying that programmer a few hundred an hour.

Discuss.

Much Ado About Nothing...

[milsoRgen]

FTA:

Netscape's dream of replacing the operating system with a browser is also coming true this year.
They've been saying that for years, and frankly it won't happen. A vast amount of users relish the control that having software stored and run locally provides. Of course there will always be exceptions as web based e-mail has shown us.

As far as the future of XML... I can't seem to find anything in this article that states anything more than the obvious, it's on the same path it's been on for quite some time.

FTA:

Success or failure, XML was intended for publishing: books, manuals, and--most important--Web pages.
Is that news to anyone? My understanding of XML is that it's intended use is to provide information, about the information.

WARNING: GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't click the "NIMP project" link. GNAA. Bad news. You know the rest.

Too many 'this stuff sucks' moments

[Bryan Ischo]

I have had far too many 'this stuff sucks' moments with XML to ever consider using it in any capacity where it is not forced upon me (which unfortunately, it is, with great frequency).

I first heard about XML years ago when it was new, and just the concept sucked to me. A markup language based on the ugly and unwieldy syntax of SGML (from which HTML derives)? We don't need more SGML-alikes, we need fewer, was my thought. This stuff sucks.

Then a while later I actually had to use XML. I read up on its design and features and thought, OK well at least the cool bit is that it has DTDs to describe the specifics of a domain of XML. But then I found out that DTDs are incomplete to the extreme, unable to properly specify large parts of what one should be able to specify with it. And on top of that, DTDs don't even use XML syntax - what the hell? This stuff sucks.

I then found that there were several competing specifications for XML-based replacements for the DTD syntax, and none were well-accepted enough to be considered the standard. So I realized that there was going to be no way to avoid fragmentation and incompatibility in XML schemas. This stuff sucks.

I spent some time reading through supposedly 'human readable' XML documents, and writing some. Both reading and writing XML is incredibly nonsuccinct, error-prone, and time consuming. This stuff sucks.

Finally I had to write some code to read in XML documents and operate on them. I searched around for freely available software libraries that would take care of parsing the XML documents for me. I had to read up on the 'SAX' and 'DOM' models of XML parsing. Both are ridiculously primitive and difficult to work with. This stuff sucks.

Of course I found the most widely distributed, and probably widely used, free XML parser (using the SAX style), expat. It is not re-entrant, because XML syntax is so ridiculously and overly complex that people don't even bother to write re-entrant parsers for it. So you have to dedicate a thread to keeping the stack state for the parser, or read the whole document in one big buffer and pass it to the parser. XML is so unwieldy and stupid that even the best freely available implementations of parsers are lame. This stuff sucks.

Then I got bitten by numerous bugs that occurred because XML has such weak syntax; you can't easily limit the size of elements in a document, for example, either in the DTD (or XML schema replacement) or expat. You just gotta accept that the parser could blow up your program if someone feeds it bad data, because the parser writers couldn't be bothered to put any kind of controls in on this, probably because they were 'thinking XML style', which basically means, not thinking much at all. This stuff sucks.

Finally, my application had poor performance because XML is so slow and bloated to read in as a wire protocol. This stuff sucks.

XML sucks in so many different ways, it's amazing. In fact I cannot think of a single thing that XML does well, or a single aspect of it that couldn't have been better planned from the beginning. I blame the creators of XML, who obviously didn't really have much of a clue.

In summary - XML sucks, and I refuse to use it, and actively fight against it every opportunity I get.

Re:Too many 'this stuff sucks' moments

[QRDeNameland]

Too bad I used up all my mod points earlier...this post deserves a +1 Insightful.

I was just a neophyte developer when XML first surfaced in buzzword bingo, but it was the beginning of my realization of how to recognize a "Kool-aid" technology: if the people who espouse a technology can not give you a simple explanation of what it is and why it's good, they are probably "drinking the "Kool-aid".

Unfortunately, I also have since discovered the unsettling corollary: you will have it forced down your throat anyway.

Re:Why is XML so popular

[cp.tar]

Then again, maybe it's a response to, "Hey! _Anything_ is better than LISP!"

Funny, that. I've heard LISPers say "XML looks quite like LISP, only uglier."

A Buzzword's Life

[kbob88]

The future of XML?

Probably a long, healthy life in a big house on the top of buzzword hill, funded by many glowing articles in magazines like InformationWeek and CIO, and 'research papers' by Gartner. Sitting on the porch yelling, "Get off my lawn!" to upstarts like SOA, AJAX, and VOIP. Hanging out watching tube with cousin HTML and poor cousin SGML. Trying to keep JSON and YAML from breaking in and swiping his stuff. Then fading into that same retirement community that housed such oldsters as EDI, VMS, SNA, CICS, RISC, etc.

Re:Why is XML so popular

[Hal_Porter]

its parsing and expansion is very easily stored and visualized as a tree

Why not store it as a tree in a format computers can parse efficiently? Invent binary format with parent and child offsets and binary tags for the names and values. It's smaller in memory and faster. Better basically. You don't need to parse them if machines are going to read them. And decent human programmers can read them with a debugger or from a hexdump in a file, or write a tool to dump them as a human friendly ASCII during development.

So parsing in general is actually quite easy.

You end up doing a bunch of string operations. Those aren't quick. Most likely you drag in some library written by a Computer Science damaged 'engineer' who doesn't understand assembler or how to read a hexdump and so it will be a lot less efficient than that.

Why not S-expressions?

[corsec67]

S-expressions (think the lisp format) are much nicer, more compact, and easier to use than XML, while sharing almost all of the same properties otherwise.

For example:
<tag1>
    <tag2>
      <tag3/>
    </tag2>
<tag1>

becomes:
(tag1
    (tag2
        (tag3)
    )
)

Don't get blindsided by big stuff you can't see

[leighklotz]

XML has tremendous, huge, giant levels of adoption that dwarf its use as XHTML and in XMLHTTPRequest (AJAX) stuff.
WHATWG's HTML 5 and JSON will have no effect on these other uses. It's just that nobody in hangouts like this sees it.

For example, the entire international banking industry runs on XML Schemas. Here's one such standard: IFX. Look at a few links: http://www.csc.com/industries/banking/news/11490.shtml , http://www.ifxforum.org/home , http://www.ifxforum.org/home
But there are other XML standards in use in banking.

The petroleum industry is a heavy user of XML. Example: Well Information Transfer Standard Markup Language WITSML (http://www.knowsys.com/ and others).

The list goes on and on, literally, in major, world-wide industry after industry. XML has become like SQL -- it was new, it still has plenty of stuff going on and smart people are working on it, but a new generation of programmers has graduated from high school, and reacts against it. But it's pure folly to think it's going to go away in favor of JSON or tag soup markup.

So yes, suceess in Facebook applications can make a few grad students drop out of school to market their "stuff," and Google can throw spitballs at Microsoft with a free spreadsheet written in Javascript, but when you right down to it, do you really think the banking industry, the petroleum industry, and countless others are going to roll over tomorrow and start hacking JSON?

Errrm, folks, what's the big fat hairy deal?

[Qbertino]

Ok. I've once again seen the full range of XML comments here. From 'cool super technology modern java' to 'OMFG it sucks' right over to 'XML has bad security' - I mean ... WTF? XML is a Data Format Standard. It has about as much to do with IT security as the color of your keyboard.

And for those of you out there who haven't yet noticed: XML sucks because data structure serialisation sucks. It allways will. You can't cut open, unravel and string out an n-dimensional net of relations into a 1-dimensional string of bits and bytes without it sucking in one way or the other. It's a, if not THE classic hard problem in IT. Get over it. It's with XML that we've finally agreed upon in which way it's supposed to suck. Halle-flippin'-luja! XML is the unified successor to the late sixties way of badly delimited literals, indifference between variables and values and flatfile constructs of obscure standards nobody wants. And which are so arcane by todays standards that they are beyond useless (Check out AICC if you don't know what I mean). Crappy PLs and config schemas from the dawn of computing.

That's all there is to XML: a universal n-to-1 serialisation standard. Nothing more and nothing less. Calm down.

And as for the headline: Of-f*cking-course it's here to stay. What do you want to change about it (much less 'enhance'). Do you want to start color-coding your data? Talking about the future of XML is allmost like talking about the future of the wheel ("Scientist ask: Will it ever get any rounder?"). Give me a break. I'm glad we got it and I'm actually - for once - gratefull to the academic IT community doing something usefull and pushing it. It's universal, can be handled by any class and style of data processing and when things get rough it's even human readable. What more do you want?

Now if only someone could come up with a replacement for SQL and enforce universal utf-8 everywhere we could finally leave the 1960s behind us and shed the last pieces of vintage computing we have to deal with on a daily basis. Thats what discussions like these should actually be about.

XML is a fad, STEP is the future

[chip2004]

XML tries to make everything fit into a single hierarchy. Most real-world information is comprised of graphs of data. ISO STEP provides better readability compared to XML, a more strongly typed schema mechanism, and a more compact size. Best of all, programs can process and present results of STEP incrementally instead of requiring closing tags so you can hold gigabytes of information in the same file and seek randomly.

Example:
#10=ORGANIZATION('O0001','LKSoft','company');
#11=PRODUCT_DEFINITION_CONTEXT('part definition',#12,'manufacturing');
#12=APPLICATION_CONTEXT('mechanical design');
#13=APPLICATION_PROTOCOL_DEFINITION('','automotive_design',2003,#12);
#14=PRODUCT_DEFINITION('0',$,#15,#11);
#15=PRODUCT_DEFINITION_FORMATION('1',$,#16);
#16=PRODUCT('A0001','Test Part 1','',(#18));
#17=PRODUCT_RELATED_PRODUCT_CATEGORY('part',$,(#16));
#18=PRODUCT_CONTEXT('',#12,'');
#19=APPLIED_ORGANIZATION_ASSIGNMENT(#10,#20,(#16));
#20=ORGANIZATION_ROLE('id owner');

Re:XML needs to be easier to read

[Dutch Gun]

I'll save the discussion for XML on the web for others - I'm a game programmer, so I deal with XML as file-based data sources.

At the game studio where I work, all our newest tools are written in C#, and use XML as a data source (typically indirectly though serialized objects). Heavyweight objects (textures, models, audio) are naturally stored in a binary format, which is optimized for the task at hand. The XML-based formats are essentially our game data's source files, and tends to function in a metadata-type capacity. As a simple example, our audio scripts store a lot of parameters about how to play a sound (pitch and volume variations, choosing among multiple variants, category and volume data, etc), and this metadata simply references external binary audio files, typically stored in a standard format like Ogg Vorbis or ADPCM compressed wave files. This metadata is compiled into a binary run-time version using a proprietary format designed to allow us to easily filter versions. These binary formats are then packed into larger containers for simpler management. Since I work on an MMO, we have to think about versioning our binary data, which tends to be challenging.

XML is a great format for us, being so widely supported, since we use both native parsing libraries as well as a lightweight custom parser for our C++ tools (or if we need to support in-game loading for the in-house version of the game). It's easy to look into a file format to see what might be going wrong using just a text editor, and with .NET's reflection capabilities, it's absolutely brainless to easily serialize any data structure. We've decided to use XAML (an XML-based object declaration format) / WPF as well. The artists love the flexibility in the tools, and can even participate in helping to design the interfaces by creating styles.

I don't know what the argument about not knowing what every tag means, like in HTML. The entire point of XML is to be extensible, meaning that it's the client application that determines what the tags ultimately mean. And using SweetXML, btw, misses one of the great benefits of using XML, which is that's it's a standard for which you're likely never going to have to write parsing libraries. It's fine if you want to go that route, but just be aware that you may not have the choice of libraries that you would have by using standard XML.

XML does tend to suffer from the "golden hammer" syndrome. Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of it's verbosity or general readability either, but if you take it for what it is, and use it sensibly, it's just another nifty tool you as a programmer can make good use of. After all, wouldn't you rather be working on more important parts of your project than fiddling with a text parser?

Make working with XML suck less...

[scottsevertson]

"XML is really just data dressed up as a hooker."

--Dave Thomas

XML does suck if you stick with some of the W3C standards and common tools. Suggestions to make it less painful:

• Ditch W3C's XML Schema

  W3C Schema is painful; it forces object-oriented design concepts onto a hierarchical data model. Consider RELAX NG (an Oasis-approved standard) instead; it's delightful in comparison. Use the verbose XML syntax when communicating with the less technical - if you've seen XML before, it's pretty easy to comprehend:

  <r:optional>
  <r:element name="w3cSchemaDescription">
  <r:choice>
  <r:value>painful</r:value>
  <r:value>ugly</r:value>
  <r:value>inflexible</r:value>
  </r:choice>
  </r:element>
  </r:optional>

  Switch to the compact syntax when you're among geeks:

  element w3cSchemaDescription { "painful" | "ugly" | "inflexible" }?

  There's validation support on major platforms, and even a tool (Trang) to convert between verbose/compact formats, and output to DTD and W3C Schemas. And, if you need to specify data types, it borrows the one technology W3C Schema got right: the Datatypes library.

• Don't use the W3C DOM

  The W3C DOM attempts to be a universal API, which means it must conform to the lowest common denominator in the programming languages it targets. Consider the NodeList interface:

  interface NodeList {
  Node item(in unsigned long index);
  readonly attribute unsigned long length;
  };

  While similar to the native list/collection/array interfaces most languages provide, it's not an exact match. So, DOM implementers create an object that doesn't work quite like any other collection on the platform. In Java, this means writing:

  for(int i = 0; i < nodeList.length(); i++)
  {
  Node node = nodeList.item(i);
  // Do something with node here...
  }

  Instead of:

  for(Node node : nodeList)
  {
  // Do something with node here...
  }

  Dynamic languages allow an even more concise syntax. Consider this Ruby builder code to build a trivial XML document:

  x.date {
  x.year "2006"
  x.month "01"
  x.day "01"
  }

  I thought about writing the W3C DOM equivalent of the above, but I'm not feeling masochistic tonight. Sorry.

  The alternatives depend on your programming language, but plenty of choices exist for DOM-style traversal/manipulation.

• Forget document models entirely (maybe)

  In-memory object models of large XML document can consume a lot of resources, but often, you only need part of the data. Consider using an XMLPull or StAX parser instead. Pull means you control the document traversal, only descending into (and fully parsing) sections of the XML that are of interest. SAX based parsers have equivalent capabilities, but the programming model is uncomfortable for many developers.

  Even better, some Pull processors are wicked fast, even when using them to construct a DOM. In Winter 2006, I benchmarked an XML-heavy application, and found WoodStox to be an order of magnitude faster at constructing thousands of small DOM4J documents