[striking]

I tried using XML on a lark the other day and realized that XSDs are actually somewhat load bearing. It's difficult to map data in XML to objects in your favorite programming language without the schema being known beforehand as lists of a single element are hard to distinguish from just a property of the overall object.

Maybe this is okay if you know your schema beforehand and are willing to write an XSD. My usecase relied on not knowing the schema. Despite my excitement to use a SAX-style parser, I tucked my tail between my legs and switched back to JSONL. Was I missing something?

[zarzavat]

You have to use the right tool for the job.

XML is extensible markup, i.e. it's like HTML that can be applied to tasks outside of representing web pages. It's designed to be written by hand. It has comments! A good use for XML would be declaring a native UI: it's not HTML but it's like HTML.

JSON is a plain text serialization format. It's designed to be generated and consumed by computers whilst being readable by humans.

Neither is a configuration language but both have been abused as one.

[locknitpicker]

> It's designed to be written by hand.

This assertion is comically out of touch with reality, particularly when trying to describe JSON as something that is merely "readable by humans". You could not do anything at all with XML without having to employ half a dozen frameworks and tools and modules.

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

> It's designed to be written by hand

Are you sure about that? I've heard XML gurus say the exact opposite.

This is a very good example of why I detest the phrase “use the right tool for the job.” People say this as an appeal to reason, as if there weren't an obvious follow-up question that different people might answer very differently.

[mkozlows]

XML was designed as a document format, not a data structure serialization format. You're supposed to parse it into a DOM or similar format, not a bunch of strongly-typed objects. You definitely need some extra tooling if you're trying to do the latter, and yes, that's one of XSD's purposes.

[froh]

that's underselling xml. xml is explicitly meant for data serialization and exchange, xsd reflects that, and it's the reason for jaxb Java xml binding tooling.

get me right: Json is superior in many aspects, xml is utterly overengineered.

but xml absolutely was _meant_ for data exchange, machine to machine.

[froh]

there were tools that derive the schema from sample data

and relaxng is a human friendly schema syntax that has transformers from and to xsd.