does XML suck?

]> does XML suck? _{or: why XML is technologically terrible, but you have to use it
anyway} 14 May 2002 Aaron Crane aaron.crane@gbdirect.co.uk GBdirect Ltd. http://xmlsucks.org/ what is XML?

&lqq;XML is a giant step in no direction at all.&rqq; (Erik Naggum)
XML purports to be a simple, vendor-neutral textual external representation for hierarchically-structured data
- Reasonably accurate ‐ except for the simplicity bit
Any arbitrary data can be expressed with a hierarchical representation
- So XML can represent any data whatsoever
The big win claimed for XML:
- One piece of software can process any XML document, and therefore any data
- Thus making XML ideal for data interchange

what XML looks like

A sample XML document:


     
      
       Monty Pythonpython@different.org
      
      
       Frank Sinatrachairmain@board.net
      
      
       Stop that, it's silly.
      
     
    ]]>

parts of an XML document

]]> is an XML declaration
python@different.org]]> is an element
- <email> is the element's start tag
- </email> is the element's end tag
- The text python@different.org is the element's content
date="2002-05-14" in the memo start tag is an attribute of the memo element
There's exactly one top-level element in a document ‐ the root element

well-formedness and validity

Every XML document is well-formed (by definition)
- Means essentially that all the elements are properly nested within each other, without overlapping
Some XML documents are also valid
A valid document is declared to meet a Document Type Definition (DTD)
The DTD can make additional constraints on the (logical) structure of the document:
- What elements are permissible
- What attributes they can have
- What elements and other content a given element can contain

XML, SGML, HTML, &ellipsis;

People with experience of HTML may think XML looks like a souped-up version
- If only it were that simple
First came SGML ‐ the Standard Generalized Markup Language
- SGML describes a way of defining markup languages (&lq;SGML applications&rq;) that can be processed by an SGML processor
HTML is an SGML application designed for doing simple hypertext
XML is like SGML, but with some of the worst excrescences removed
- Every XML document is also an SGML document (kind of)
XHTML is an XML syntax for HTML

problems with XML

Verbosity
- XML documents are frustratingly and unnecessarily verbose for human authors
- Also implies high storage and bandwidth costs
Complexity
- What little XML offers is more complex than it could be
Oversimplification
- XML per se is too simplistic to handle what people actually need
- This leads to a huge number of other technologies to work around deficiencies in XML
- All of them put together are insanely more complex than a reasonable solution would have been

verbosity

XML is hideously verbose for humans ‐ just like SGML
The earlier memo example could be written as a plain text email:
```
     To: Frank Sinatra 

     Stop that, it's silly
    ]]>
```
- Needs a special-purpose processing tool
- Doesn't encode as much information
Or you could use an alternative bracketed notation:
```
      >
      >
      >
    ]]>
```

complexity: attributes and content

Designing XML data structures is harder than it ought to be
- Unnatural distinction between element content and attributes

An easy example:

...
     ...
     12345...
     ...
     invoice12345...
     
       invoice
       12345
       ...
     
    ]]>

Many people use content for &lq;data&rq; and attributes for &lq;metadata&rq;
- So metadata is never structured?

complexity: parsing

One of the design goals of XML was that XML processing programs be easy to write
- The working group wanted CS graduates to be able to write an XML processor in a week
Quite clear that XML does not meet this goal
- Many items of XML syntax not mentioned here: empty element tags, DOCTYPE declarations, comments, CDATA sections, parsed entities, processing instructions, default attribute values, DTD syntax, parameter entities, external/internal DTD subsets,&ellipsis;
Extremely hard to find an XML parser which combines all of:
- Completeness (including validation)
- Correctness
- Efficiency

oversimplification

The base XML specification explicitly refuses to consider any issues except data representation
For example, it has nothing to say about:
- Appropriate ways of processing XML documents
- How to constrain and validate an XML document in ways that can't be described with DTDs
- Combining content from multiple XML vocabularies into a single document
- Creating links from one XML document to another
- Extracting bits of information from an XML document
- How to transform one XML document into another
- Rendering XML data using existing technologies

oversimplification causes acronym proliferation

Many other people have noticed these limitations in XML
- And apparently they've all written at least one add-on specification for XML&ellipsis;
Learning the over-complex XML itself isn't enough for using XML to conduct your business
Also have to acquire familiarity with some or all of a bewildering array of additional technologies
- Some of which overlap in scope or even contradict each other

processing technologies

Two semi-standard interfaces for XML processors (parsers) to present to applications
- DOM (Document Object Model)
  - The parser reads the entire document into an in-memory tree structure
  - It provides a wide variety of methods for examining or changing individual parts of the tree
- SAX (Simple API for XML)
  - A streaming model: the parser reads the data bit by bit
  - It tells the application whenever it finds a meaningful unit (start tag, end tag, chunk of text, etc.)
Also DOM2, SAX2 (Because One Is Never Enough)

improved validity checking

DTDs really suck
- Non-XML syntax, so you can't manipulate them with XML tools
- Extremely limited in what constraints they can specify
- Incredibly complex rules for how non-validating parsers should handle DTDs
Approximately 71,386 alternative validity-checking technologies:
- Schemas (pretty popular)
- RELAX (Regular Language Description for XML; obsolete)
- RELAX-NG (Next Generation)
- TREX (Tree Regular Expressions for XML)
- Schematron (has a really cool name)
But don't forget: only DTDs will let you use entity references

combining multiple vocabularies

There is a Namespaces specification
- Each element in a document is associated with a namespace
- Each namespace is identified by a unique URL

A simple example:


      Monty Python
      Cheese Seller
      
       
        ...
       
      
     
    ]]>

Fairly tricky to combine Namespaces with validity checking

linking between XML documents

XLink: ...]]> on acid

A quick example:


      Current List of Students
     
    ]]>

This is broadly equivalent to the HTML:
```
Current List of Students]]>
```

data extraction

XPath lets you find specific parts of an XML document, assuming you know something of its structure
- Used by several other important standards
- Not unreasonable in its more basic usages: /doc/chapter[5]/section[2]
XQuery is similar but, unfortunately, not quite the same
- An entire programming language
- The bastard offspring of XPath, SQL, and a host of earlier XML querying technologies
- But at least it uses the word &lq;atomization&rq; as a technical term

transformation

Extremely common to need to transform one XML document into another
- Exchange invoices, purchase orders, etc. as XML documents conforming to a standardised vocabulary
- But leave your internal data in some company-specific format
Two options for transformations:
1. Write a program in your language of choice that uses a SAX or DOM parser and manipulates the document as necessary
2. Or if you feel masochistic, use XSLT (XSL Transformations)
Simple transformations in XSLT are trivial (if obscenely verbose)
More complex ones can be absurdly hard

rendering

CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) can be used directly with XML documents
- Don't forget to specify a display: property for each element in the document
Alternatively, transform your XML document into something else
- XSLT was designed for translating arbitrary XML documents into XSL-FO (XSL Formatting Objects) documents
- XSL-FO is a fairly complete XML-based document rendering language
- XSL-FO processing applications typically handle conversion into HTML and/or PDF

(some of) The Rest

A few selected XML standards (but spot the two fakes&ellipsis;)
CML (Chemical Markup Language), DC (Dublin Core metadata), ebXML (XML for e-business), MathML, RDF (Resource Description Framework), SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language), SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), VoiceXML, ADS, DISCO, DSD (Document Structure Description), SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol), UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration), WDDL, WRDL (Web Resource Description Language), WSCL (Web Service Conversation Language), X2EE, WSDL (Web Service Description Language), WSIL (Web Service Inspection Language), XBase, XFL (XML Framework Language), XForms, XInclude, XKMS (XML Key Management Specification), XML Signature, XML-RPC, XPointer, XQL (XML Query Language), XML-QL (XML Query Language ‐ again), Quilt, XSL (XML Stylesheet Language), &ellipsis;

other thoughts

&lqq;Doing more than skimming the XML specs would require far longer than I have; and they've also now fallen through my good strong 19th century floor and killed several innocent bystanders in the floors below before finally coming to rest, smoking, embedded in the bedrock a few hundred yards under my flat.&rqq; (Tim Bradshaw)
&lqq;Structure is nothing if it is all you've got. Skeletons spook people if they try to walk around on their own; I really wonder why XML does not.&rqq; (Erik Naggum)

doing it anyway

XML qua technology seems to be a bad joke
But you have to do it anyway
Two main reasons:
1. The technological problems can be managed
2. More importantly: everyone else is doing it

managing the technological problems

The verbosity is merely an annoyance
XML's one big advantage is that most of the innate complexity can be dealt with once and for all
The hard part is the complexity-through-oversimplification
- Even here, the situation is improving
- It's becoming more obvious which XML technologies are really important and which are dead ends
- Programming tools like Perl's SAX Machines are extremely powerful

a bigger boy made me do it

Huge numbers of businesses already rely on XML
- Not least because it is mandated by governments and by large corporations at the top of industry-wide supply chains
All the evidence suggests that XML will become ubiquitous (if not unavoidable) in the near future
XML is already being used to accomplish hard tasks ‐ XSL-FO and SAX Machines come to mind
Though adopting XML technologies implies significant costs for businesses, the costs of not using XML may well be bigger

conclusions

XML does suck technologically, but:
- The technological problems can be managed
- The political and commercial advantages of working with the same open standard as everyone else are enormous
XML is here to stay