Don't forget that XML came around 5-10 years before JSON got anywhere.

XML changed things, because it shifted focus from syntax and parsing to the actual meaning of the document. It's easy now to say XML sucks, but having a standard format (that was self-documenting, too) that _everyone_ jumped on, is a major jump.

Go look at RFCs for HTTP or SIP and see how idiotic it is to have to parse yet another custom format with all sorts of cutesy exceptions. XML eliminates that. Can it be done better? Now, sure.

Actually XML is more "reach" format than JSON. XML nodes have attributes and values, when in JSON - values only. And lot of databases are "document-oriented": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document-oriented_database and what is matters in comparison is parsing performance and size. JSON just more compact, but not better in all aspects. I think XML is an excellent format, especially when size matters less than "dimensions" of presented information. I think it's perfect format for RSS and for REST API and for web-pages.

XML seen in the wild rarely has good separation of attributes and values. It can be useful to distinguish data and metadata, but it’s more expressivity than perhaps most applications need.

> Presumably XML is good for "interchange" but I've never found that to be the case. JSON seems to do just fine. :)

It's not; they are as well many rants about using it as a data interchange format, 'cause pretty much everything, from S-expressions to JSON, is better at this task.

I prefer S-expressions to JSON.

I don't know if this was your intent, but reading your comment there seems an implication XML is no longer a good fit for anything, really.

But from the article:

"When XML was originally conceived, it was meant for document formats. And by that standard… boy! did it succeed! Virtually all word processing and e-book formats are in XML today."

Document formats is a large, important area of technology. I suppose each of us can decide if that means XML's glass is half-full, or half-empty.