Is XML Dead?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

thedealmaker

Senior member
Jul 10, 2003
278
0
0
Hi,
I am doing a project and plan to use XML, and start to learn it. XML was invented quite a while ago, but it still isn't that popular in term of real development. Everybody heard about it, but not that many people really use it in implementation. I rarely see it on the web. Maybe I am wrong since I was not in this specific area until now.

So is XML one of those technologies that is dead on arrival? If so, what is everyone using nowadays? HTML is old but it's still popular, but what's next?

Many thanks.
 
Modeps

Modeps

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
17,254
44
91
XML is not dead, RSS is finally taking off and XHTML is fantastic.
 
M

mundane

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2002
5,603
8
81
You're right that XML has roots in the in the 70's (circa SGML?), but I highly suggest you do more reseach on the current state of XML before declaring it dead. It's used in a wide variety of projects. For example:

Apache Ant
XUL (Mozilla based UI design - supposedely, even Avalon, the next Generation MS UI will be using XML to describe the interfaces)
SOAP
XML-RPC
and so on. Do some googling.

You ever visit Amazon.com? Try using http://www.amazon.com/webservices to see just how XML is being used by developers in conjunction with their site. XML has a good bit of popularity in web based communications, since its intended to be meduim neutral.
 
KB

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
You are probebly refering to the discussion that XML would replace HTML, which never happened.

XML is used all over. It has become the primary format for config files in .Net, Gnome and many other projects.
 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: KB
You are probebly refering to the discussion that XML would replace HTML, which never happened.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever said xml would replace html. html is xml (xhtml, technically, but it's all the same thing). Saying that never happened is living 5 or 6 years in the past.

 
ArmchairAthlete

ArmchairAthlete

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2002
3,763
0
0
XML is used in the World of Warcraft GUI and customization of said GUI =)

I may be getting into it at my coop job when I start, maybe not this summer but sometime.

EDIT: I think iTunes saves your music library (at least client side) in an XML file.
 
N

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: KB
You are probebly refering to the discussion that XML would replace HTML, which never happened.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever said xml would replace html. html is xml (xhtml, technically, but it's all the same thing). Saying that never happened is living 5 or 6 years in the past.
Click to expand...

HTML is neither XML nor XHTML.
 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: KB
You are probebly refering to the discussion that XML would replace HTML, which never happened.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever said xml would replace html. html is xml (xhtml, technically, but it's all the same thing). Saying that never happened is living 5 or 6 years in the past.
Click to expand...
HTML is neither XML nor XHTML.
Click to expand...
And a dog is not a golden retriever :roll: Pasting an X on the front doesn't make it a different language. Granted, html up to 4.x was not xml.

Edit: hmm, that doesn't make as much sense as I thought it did :eek:. Please ignore most of the above post :confused::) What I mean to say is that xhtml is html and it is xml. Strictly speaking html isn't xml but it is in essence and that's why they "merged".
 
N

neit

Senior member
Dec 6, 2001
353
0
0
As to the HTML/XML argument, XML is an overall way of using a markup language and has a set of rules that make it consistent. XML documents would therefore be predictable and if you knew a new document you recieved complied with XML requirements, you could use simple parsing tools on it.

HTML later evolved to fit this set of rules (not very difficult), but it was different to how HTML had been used up to that point. XHTML specifics (if it works fine on older browsers, what will happen with new browsers, etc) can be found on the w3c's website, and is at least useful to skim to get the idea of how XHTML came to be and what its goals are.
 
mugs

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Microsoft LOVES XML, they're shoving it anywhere they can fit it. XML is about as dead as HTML.
 
D

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: KB
You are probebly refering to the discussion that XML would replace HTML, which never happened.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever said xml would replace html. html is xml (xhtml, technically, but it's all the same thing). Saying that never happened is living 5 or 6 years in the past.
Click to expand...
HTML is neither XML nor XHTML.
Click to expand...
And a dog is not a golden retriever :roll: Pasting an X on the front doesn't make it a different language. Granted, html up to 4.x was not xml.
Click to expand...

No, a dog is not a golden retriever; I have a hard time believing that you don't see the fallacious reasoning.

1) A golden retriever is a dog, but quite obviously a dog isn't necessarily a golden retriever. Does this really need explanation? You were attempting to imply a hierarchy, and while that's obvious enough you can't apply your logic DOWN the hierarchy.
2) Even if your analogy was correct, HTML is not the foundation for XML nor was XML a foundation for HTML.

You can have perfectly valid HTML and have invalid XML. You're right about the X though, it doesn't make it a different "language' (neither of them are languages by the way); rather, it's the fact that they are entirely different markups with entirely different standards and goals that make them different. XML was carried over to solve many problems with HTML and therefore borrowed the name XHTML, but that's where it ends.

So, notfred was quite right and you are quite wrong.

:D

[edit]Edited to be less harsh[/edit]
 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Descartes
(neither of them are languages by the way)
Click to expand...
While I have been thoroughly schooled by the rest of your post, I'll argue this one with you.
Hyper Text Markup ________
eXtensible Markup _________
Three guesses ;)

 
D

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
Originally posted by: kamper
See above retraction :D
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: I have more to say...

What I mean to say is that xhtml is html and it is xml.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Let's break this down. A = xhtml, b = html, and c = xml.

If a = b and b = c then a = c. Right? Valid XHTML isn't necessarily valid HTML, so a != b; if a != b then b != c, so XML isn't necessarily XHTML and most certainly not HTML.

Sorry, it's late, but hopefully that makes sense.

Strictly speaking html isn't xml but it is in essence and that's why they "merged".
Click to expand...

The best word choice yet is "essence." Yes, like just about everything in computing there are antecedents from which ideas are borrowed; however, XML was not created to specifically address HTML problems, but given its wide applicability its well-formed nature lended itself well to some problems that existed with HTML.
 
D

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: Descartes
(neither of them are languages by the way)
Click to expand...
While I have been thoroughly schooled by the rest of your post, I'll argue this one with you.
Hyper Text Markup ________
eXtensible Markup _________
Three guesses ;)
Click to expand...

Semantics :) You're too caught up on names. Having HTML in XHTML doesn't make it HTML, and having language in the acronym doesn't make it so; however, I understand that this is an argument of semantics and will therefore elicit different opinions on what constitutes a language. I would not consider it a language alone, but calling it a "markup language" would pass in my eyes; remember, it's just metadata.
 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Descartes
Valid XHTML isn't necessarily valid HTML
Click to expand...
Don't follow. How is valid xhtml not valid html? I know it doesn't match older specifications but xhtml is an html standard. You don't say that valid html4.01 isn't valid html because it doesn't conform to the xhtml spec.
 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: Descartes
(neither of them are languages by the way)
Click to expand...
While I have been thoroughly schooled by the rest of your post, I'll argue this one with you.
Hyper Text Markup ________
eXtensible Markup _________
Three guesses ;)
Click to expand...
Semantics :) You're too caught up on names. Having HTML in XHTML doesn't make it HTML, and having language in the acronym doesn't make it so; however, I understand that this is an argument of semantics and will therefore elicit different opinions on what constitutes a language. I would not consider it a language alone, but calling it a "markup language" would pass in my eyes; remember, it's just metadata.
Click to expand...
It's not a programming language but that doesn't mean it's not a language. It's still a defined syntax for communicating something. I'd whip out the dictionary definition on you but that'd be pushing it a bit too far :p

No more semantics. Time for bed :)
 
D

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: Descartes
Valid XHTML isn't necessarily valid HTML
Click to expand...
Don't follow. How is valid xhtml not valid html? I know it doesn't match older specifications but xhtml is an html standard. You don't say that valid html4.01 isn't valid html because it doesn't conform to the xhtml spec.
Click to expand...

XHTML can be perfectly valid, but given HTML 4.01 it's quite possible to have invalid HTML (e.g. the IMG tag). Now, it's quite true that some, if not most, browsers will be forgiving enough for you to render it normally, but that doesn't change the fact that it's possible to have perfectly valid XHTML and invalid HTML.

I'm really trying to understand how you look at it. You are seeing XHTML as nothing more than a derivation of HTML, but I certainly don't see it that way. Even W3C quotes it as "a reformulation of HTML in XML." This is no longer HTML.

So long as you see the distinction I see no harm, but your casual treatment of them as being almost equals is what I felt required clarification.
 
Lanyap

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,301
2,397
136
I'm starting to see big businesses use XML for messages passed between applications on mainframes and servers.

 
kamper

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: Descartes
Valid XHTML isn't necessarily valid HTML
Click to expand...
Don't follow. How is valid xhtml not valid html? I know it doesn't match older specifications but xhtml is an html standard. You don't say that valid html4.01 isn't valid html because it doesn't conform to the xhtml spec.
Click to expand...

XHTML can be perfectly valid, but given HTML 4.01 it's quite possible to have invalid HTML (e.g. the IMG tag). Now, it's quite true that some, if not most, browsers will be forgiving enough for you to render it normally, but that doesn't change the fact that it's possible to have perfectly valid XHTML and invalid HTML.

I'm really trying to understand how you look at it. You are seeing XHTML as nothing more than a derivation of HTML, but I certainly don't see it that way. Even W3C quotes it as "a reformulation of HTML in XML." This is no longer HTML.

So long as you see the distinction I see no harm, but your casual treatment of them as being almost equals is what I felt required clarification.
Click to expand...
I guess I just figured that xhtml is a replacement for html so it may as well just be called the next iteration of the same thing. MrChad's link was a nice read (thanks, btw) and the mime type stuff is definitely something I wasn't considering. I don't think I'll go back to real html because I think I gathered that I'm still fine if I use the w3c validator for xhtml and ensure that my pages look fine in the browsers I target but I've definitely learned something tonight. Thanks guys :) (even though you're eating into my sleeping time :|).

Now get this thread back to the death of xml :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom