News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:XML: Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't always kill b... by Groxx on Saturday February 19, 2011 @09:05PM (#2240700)
Tons of highly popular languages don't have XML parsers built to the spec. Very few of them can handle schemas at all, or recursive definitions in schemas, or external document types, or external entities or schemas (and the few that can are usually disabled intentionally, because they can make parsing a tiny XML file take minutes if the server of the schema doesn't serve it up fast enough). That the XML spec defines such things is irrelevant if they're wholly unreliable because enough parsers refuse to handle them. And there are more than enough horror stories out there to argue that a significant amount of systems don't handle to-spec XML.

There are plenty of RFCs out there that define things that no longer practically exist - should they be used, because the spec defines something that you need? Especially if it's meant to be used as an interchange format?

Re:XML: Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't always kill b... by saurik on Sunday February 20, 2011 @04:41AM (#2241526)
And if JSON did all of those things the libraries that implemented it would suck as well: the complexity comes from the semantics of what all of those things are and do (schema validation is a complex problem, and that has nothing to do with whether you are validating XML or JSON), not how to parse a silly file format.

Hell: a lot of highly popular languages, to be quite honest for a minute, probably don't even have compliant JSON parsers. The real problem here is cowboy developers who think "oh, JSON/XML/whatever is easy, I can throw one of those together in a few minutes" and then /don't even read the spec/ before committing their project into some poor language's standard library.