> > this *isn't* the same to me: attributes are for metadata and tag contents > are for data
That's what I mean: there isn't always an obvious distinction between data and metadata. For structured HTML-like documents, it's common to see attributes used for anything not seen by readers (i.g., "metadata"). For general purpose data serialisation, things aren't as clear-cut. In both cases, the decision to use attributes is still an arbitrary one. Which brings me to my next point: the more bells-and-whistles attached to a data format, the more confusing and hostile it becomes to users. For example, YAML has 6 fucking ways <https://stackoverflow.com/a/21699210> to write a multi-line string, none of which I'm able to remember when I need to add a multi-line string to a YAML file. Conversely, tab- and newline-delimited lists are the simplest data format that's also the easiest to parse: # Extract the second, third, and fifth columns from data.tsv $ grep -v ^# < data.tsv | cut -f2,3,5 // Even in JavaScript, it's still pretty trivial: let data = tsv.replace(/^#.*\n?/m, "").split("\n").map(x => x.split("\t")); pug (pugjs.org/) restored the balance in my xml galaxy: Pug/Jade is a templating engine for HTML documents. It doesn't generate XML—the example you gave produces <doc><title>My stupid document</title><enabled/></doc> … which is neither valid HTML nor XML. It *would* be valid XML if it included the mandatory <?xml …?> directive; the header's absence suggests Pug simply accepts arbitrary tag-names (probably to maximise compatibility with JSX and future versions of HTML). In any case, Pug is simply one of *many* tools that provide syntactic sugar for HTML. I'm sure there's a similar templating engine somewhere that supports XML output. On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 01:11, Marc Chantreux <e...@phear.org> wrote: > hello, > > > XML is verbose, cumbersome to read and write, and has two different ways > to > > express data structures > > > <doc title="My stupid document" enabled="true"></doc> > > <doc> > > <title>My stupid document</title> > > <enabled>true</enabled> > > <enabled /> > > </doc> > > this *isn't* the same to me: attributes are for metadata and tag > contents are for data. but the thing is: because xml is so painful > to edit, people (including me) started to abuse metadata. > > pug (pugjs.org/) restored the balance in my xml galaxy: > > doc > title My stupid document > enabled/ > > seems ok to me. > > > Conversely, JSON is more concise and predictable > > json is more relevant than xml to store datastructures, right, but > i just said anything positive i can tell about JSON ... > > > { "title": "My stupid document", "enabled": true } > > how about the example that follows ? > regards > marc > > <doc> > <title>My stupid document</title> > <enabled>true</enabled> > <abstract> > this is about trying to explain that <format id="json"/> > is way inferior to > <enum of="file-formats"> > <format>roff</format> > <format>tex</format> > <format>tex</format> > </enum> > in some situations. but when i want to store data, my first > attempt will be cbor to exchange and tsv to edit (or using ascii > separators from 0x1c to 0x1f). another solution i like is the > one i saw from time to time but don't know if it ever has a name. > here is an example: > <snippet> > %T My stupid document > %E not sure anymore ... > </snippet> > </abstract> > </doc> > >
