XML is just a way to organize data. And they sell (IBM) to us like a universal format, that will work for everything.

Well, I respec XML, but I don't think that is useful, since they don't keep it simple (KISS). Yes, to be universal, need to be simple. This is why we talk in english in other countrys, not latin or esperanto (yes the synthetic and dead language). In other words, XML is like esperanto. Is soo like it, just think, speranto was created based in something that was already there and famous, latin, XML was created based in HTML. But speranto need to be simple, since every one can be able to use it easy, but wasn't and XML... The problem of XML is that they started from the wrong point.

But why XML is hard? Well, XML is very easy to declare, to make the document, like HTML is. But is hard to read, to get the data that are inside. Just imagine that you need to make a parser for HTML for a viewer. HTML is not a good format to catch data.

I think that some format simple to catch data and that enable a tree structure (when is needed) will be better. Is just a case to do it, and is something needed.

I remmember that I saw, in the last year (XML was there a long time), in Perl.com an article "Finally I found an use for XML". In other words, in the way that XML was it's not very useful, we still prefer to use our format or make one.

Graciliano M. P.
"The creativity is the expression of the liberty".

In reply to Re: is XML too hard? by gmpassos
in thread is XML too hard? by thraxil

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":