There has been a lot of chatter about Tim Bray's piece "Don’t Invent XML Languages". Good. I'm all for anything that makes people think carefully about XML language design and problems of semantic transparency (communicated meaning of XML structure). I'm all for it even though I generally disagree with Tim's conclusions. Here are some quick thoughts on Tim's essay, and some of the responses I've seen.
Here’s a radical idea: don’t even think of making your own language until you’re sure that you can’t do the job using one of the Big Five: XHTML, DocBook, ODF, UBL, and Atom.—Bray
This is a pretty biased list, and happens to make sense for the circles in which he moves. Even though I happen to move in much the same circles, the first thing I'd say is that there could hardly ever be an authoritative "big 5" list of XML vocabs. There is too much debate and diversity, and that's too good a thing to sweep under the rug. MS Office XML or ODF? OAGIS or UBL? RSS 2.0 or Atom? Sure I happen to plump for the latter three, as Tim does, but things are not so clear cut for the average punter. (I didn't mention TEI or DocBook because it's much less of a head to head battle).
I made my own list in "A survey of XML standards: Part 3—The most important vocabularies" (IBM developerWorks, 2004). It goes:
- XHTML
- Docbook
- XSL-FO
- SVG
- VoiceXML
- MathML
- SMIL
- RDF
- XML Topic Maps
And in that article I admit I'm "just scratching the surface". The list predates first full releases of Atom and ODF, or they would have been on it. I should also mention XBEL, which is, I think, not as widely trumpetd, but just about as important as those other entrants. BTW, see the full cross-reference of my survey of XML standards.
Designing XML Languages is hard. It’s boring, political, time-consuming, unglamorous, irritating work. It always takes longer than you think it will, and when you’re finished, there’s always this feeling that you could have done more or should have done less or got some detail essentially wrong.—Bray
This is true. It's easy to be flip and say "sure, that's true of programming, but we're not being advised to write no more programs". But then I think this difficulty is even more true of XML design than of programming, and it's worth reminding people that a useful XML vocabulary is not something you toss off in the spare hour. Simon St.Laurent has always been a sound analyst of the harm done by programmers who take shortcuts and abuse markup in order to suite their conventions. The lesson, however, should be to learn best practices of markup design rather than to become a helpless spectator.
If you’re going to design a new language, you’re committing to a major investment in software development. First, you’ll need a validator. Don’t kid yourself that writing a schema will do the trick; any nontrivial language will have a whole lot of constraints that you can’t check in a schema language, and any nontrivial language needs an automated validator if you’re going to get software to interoperate.
If people would just use decent schema technology, this point would be very much weakened. Schema designers rarely see beyond plain W3C XML Schema or RELAX NG. Too bad. RELAX NG plus Schematron (with XPath 1.0/XSLT 1.0 drivers) covers a huge number of constraints. Add in EXSLT 1.0 drivers for Schematron and you can cover probably 95+% of Atom's constraints (probably more, actually). Throw in user-defined extensions and you have a very powerful and mostly declarative validation engine. We should do a better job of rendering such goodness to XML developers, rather than scaring them away with duct-tape-validator bogeymen.
Yes, XHTML is semantically weak and doesn’t really grok hierarchy and has a bunch of other problems. That’s OK, because it has a general-purpose
classattribute and ignores markup it doesn’t know about and you can bastardize it eight ways from center without anything breaking. The Kool Kids call this “Microformats”...
This understated bit is, I think, the heart of Tim's argument. The problem is that I still haven't been able to figure out why Microformats have any advantage in Semantic transparency over new vocabularies. Despite the fuzzy claims of μFormatters, a microformat requires just as much specification as a small, standalone format to be useful. It didn't take me long kicking around XOXO to solve a real-world problem before this became apparent to me.
Some interesting reactions to the piece
Dare Obasanjo. Dare indirectly brought up that Ian Hickson had argued against inventing XML vocabularies in 2003. I remember violently and negatively reacting to the idea that everyone should stick to XHTML and its elite companions. Certainly such limitations make sense for some, but the general case is more nuanced (thank goodness). Side note: another pioneer of the pessimistic side of this argument is Mark Pilgrim http://www.xml.com/pub/au/164. Needless to say I disagree with many of his points as well.
I've always considered it a gross hack to think that instead of having an HTML web page for my blog and an Atom/RSS feed, instead I should have a single HTML page with
<div class="rss:item">or<h3 class="atom:title">embedded in it instead. However given that one of the inventors of XML (Tim Bray) is now advocating this approach, I wonder if I'm simply clinging to old ways and have become the kind of intellectual dinosaur I bemoan.—Obasanjo
Dare is, I think, about as stubborn and tart as I am, so I'm amazed to
see him doubting his convictions in this way. Please don't, Dare. You're
quite correct. Microformats are just a hair away from my pet reductio
ad absurdum—<tag type="title"> rather than just <title>. I
still haven't heard a decent argument for such periphrasis. And I don't
see how the fact that tag is semantically anchored does anything
special for the stepchild identifier title in the microformats scenario.
BTW, there is a priceless quote in comments to Dare:
OK, so they're saying: don't create new XML languages - instead, create new HTML languages. Because if you can't get people to [separate presentation from data], hijack the presentation!—"Steve"
Wot he said. With bells on.
I think most XML languages have been created by one of three processes - translating from a legacy format; mapping directly from the domain entities to the syntax; creating an abstract model from the domain, then mapping from that to the XML. The latter two of these are really on a greyscale: a language designer probably has the abstract entities and relationships in mind when creating the format, whether or not they have been expressed formally.—Ayers
I've had my tiffs with RDF gurus lately, but this is the sort of point you can trust an RDF guru to nail, and Danny does so. XML languages are, like all languages, about expression. The farther the expression lies from the abstraction being expressed (the model), the more expensive the maintenance. Punting to an existing format that might have some vague ties to the problem space is a much worse economic bet than the effort of designing a sound and true format for that problem space.
To slightly repurpose another Danny quote towards XML,
...in most cases it’s probably best to initially make up afresh a new representation that matches the domain model as closely as possible(/appropriate). Only then start looking to replacing the new terms with established ones with matching semantics. But don’t see reusing things as more important than getting an (appropriately) accurate model.—Ayers
Ned Batchelder. He correctly identifies that Tim Bray's points tend to be most applicable to document-style XML. I've long since come to the conclusion (again with a lot of influence from Simon St.Laurent) that XML is too often the wrong solution for programmer-data-focused formats (including software configuration formats). Yeah, of course I've already elaborated in the Python context.
