Are we really at the point where some people see XML as a spooky old technology? The phrasing dotted around this article makes me feel that way. I find this quite strange.
Nobody dares advertise the XML capabilities of their product (which back then everybody did), nobody considers it either hot new thing (like back then) or mature - just obsolete enterprise shit.
It's about as popular now as J2EE, except to people that think "10 years ago" means 1999.
What's more, the web standards bodies even abandoned a short-lived XML-hype-era plan to make a new version of HTML based on XML in 2009.
That from this touted to the heavens format a handful of uses remain (some companies still using SOAP, the MS Office monster schemas, RSS, EPUB, and so on) is the very opposite of the adoption it was supposed to have. For those that missed the 90s/early 00s, XML was a hugely hyped format, with enormous corporate adoption between 1999–2005, which deflated totally.
Did you also learned those things too today?
I suppose the proof is in the parsing
Really, I think you can trace a lot of the "XML is spooky old technology" mindset to the release of HTML 5. That was when XML stopped being directly relevant to the web, though of course it still lives on in many other domains and legacy web apps.
Exactly the opposite; WHATWG “Living Standard” HTML (different releases of which were used as the basis for W3C HTML5, 5.1, and 5.2 before the W3C stopped doing that) includes an XML serialization as part of the spec, so now the HTML-in-XML is permanently in sync with and feature-matched with plain HTML.
“Warning! Using the XML syntax is not recommended, for reasons which include the fact that there is no specification which defines the rules for how an XML parser must map a string of bytes or characters into a Document object, as well as the fact that the XML syntax is essentially unmaintained — in that, it’s not expected that any further features will ever be added to the XML syntax (even when such features have been added to the HTML syntax).”
XHTML was an attempt to encode HTML semantics (approximately, each version of XHTML also altered some semantics from HTML and previous XHTML versions) in XML, and the XML serialization of modern, WHATWG HTML exactly encodes HTML semantics in XML.
XML is really great for text documents with embeds and markup, either semantic (this part of the paper is an abstract) or visual (this part of the document should be 14-point and aligned right). You can do this in JSON, but it's a pain.
JSON is great for representing data. If you have some data structures and two machines trying to exchange them, JSON is great for that.
TOML / yaml / hcl / JSON with comments are great at config. If you have a human writing something that a machine is supposed to understand, you don't want turning completeness and you don't want to deal with the pain of having your own DSL, those are great.
I’d be very curious what lasting open formats JSON has been used to build.
People upload their podcasts to a platform like Apple Music or Spotify or Substack and co, or to some backend connected to their Wordpress/Ghost/etc) and it spits the RSS behind the scenes, with nobody giving a shit about the XML part.
Might as well declare USSR a huge IT success because people still play Tetris.
Let's say I hope for the day I'll miss SOAP. Right now I have too much of it.
Typically a more primitive (sorry, minimal) format such as JSON is sufficient in which case there's no excuse to overcomplicate things. But sometimes JSON isn't sufficient and people start inventing half baked solutions such as JSON-LD for what is already a solved problem with a mature tech stack.
XSLT remains an elegant and underused solution. Guile even includes built in XML facilities named SXML.
People who wanted to "get shit done" had much better alternatives. XML grew out of hype, corporate management forcing it, and bundling to all kinds of third party products and formats just so they can tick the "have this hot new format support" box.
YAML is just bad. JSON is harder to read for deeply nested structures. TOML and the like don't have enough features.
But it used to be. And so it was used for a lot of things where it wasn't a great fit. XML works fairly well as a markup format, but for a lot of things, something like json models the data better.
> which case there's no excuse to overcomplicate things.
And that's a problem with xml. It's too complicated. Even if the basic model of xml is a good fit for your data, most of the time you don't need to worry about namespaces and entity definitions, and DTDs, but those are still part of most implementations and can expose more attack surface for vulnerabilities (especially entity definitions). And the APIs of libraries are generally fairly complicated.
There are several. And that's the problem. It isn't hard to find a subset with a library for a single language that uses a slightly different subset from the other subsets. But none of them ever caught on.
Then spend the next week making it even more convoluted.
That data format is still better than EDI.
What gets me is going from this structured data to Markdown which doesn’t even have enough features & syntax that the LLMs try to invent or co-opt things like the blockquote for not quoting sources.
For Web markup, as an industry we tried XHTML (HTML that was strictly XML) for a while, and that didn't stick, and now we have HTML5 which is much more lenient as it doesn't even require closing tags in some cases.
For data exchange, people vastly prefer JSON as an exchange format for its simplicity, or protobuf and friends for their efficiency.
As a configuration format, it has been vastly overtaken by YAML, TOML, and INI, due to their content-forward syntax.
Having said all this I know there are some popular tools that use XML like ClickHouse, Apple's launchd, ROS, etc. but these are relatively niche compared to (e.g.) HTML
XML was definitely popular in the "well used" sense. How popular it was in the "well liked" sense can maybe be up for debate, but it was the best tool for the job at the time for alot of use cases.