On 12/28/2021 12:44 PM, Roger L Costello wrote:
> Michael Kay wrote:
>
>> we've learnt as a community that trying to improve XML
>> doesn't work: the standard is too deeply embedded.
> Yes, I can see that. On this very list there have been several attempts to improve XML and none of the attempts gained much traction.
Hmm... SML conversation here led pretty directly to YAML, which
definitely has traction. I think also a large part of the world has
effectively subset XML to the simplest well-formed structures they can
get away with. That's not likely a direct result of this list, but it's
certainly been a conversation here in the past.
> So what is the lesson to be learned from this? How about this:
>
> When creating a new standard, get it right in its
> first version because if the standard is a success
> you likely won't get a chance to improve it later on.
>
> Is that the lesson to be learned? If so, how to ensure that you "get it right"? For instance, what could the XML Working Group have done differently to get it right? Should the XML Working Group have delayed the release of the XML standard for a year or two until a sizeable group of people had had the opportunity to work with XML and report on its warts?
I like your lesson, but I don't think most of XML's excessive
complexities stem from XML 1.0. (A few do.) They mostly come from the
over-enthusiastic follow-on projects.
Thanks,
Simon
