xmlhack: Love-hate relationships with XML

Two sites which both embrace XML and criticize its flaws have appeared in the last few weeks :xmlsuck.com and xmlbastard.com.

Both sites feature articles exploring the underside of XML, and encourage community comment. XML Bastard warns:

"If you "like" XML, you probably shouldn't read anything here. If you "love" XML, then you'll probably understand where we're coming from. Don't get us wrong... We love XML, but namespaces are evil, and RDF makes most people's head hurt."

In the Welcome to XMLSuck message, Paul Tchistopolskii notes that:

"there are some brilliant proposals and XML criticisms. There should be some place to bring those proposals, criticisms, and rants together. "

The XML community doesn't seem to have a "love it or leave it" attitude, and these sites may demonstrate how much room there is for both XML cheerleading and XML criticism.

Both websites allow you to provide a comment to the particular article you don't like.

If you can point to particular problem of any posting on www.xmlsuck.com - you are always welcome to write your comment ( like other people do ). Anybody can do that.

<quote> A quick glance reveals they are either unaware of, ignoring, or inventing history selectively in order to support their negative views. </quote>

Nice observation. What in particular is the 'invention of the history' on, for example, www.xmlsuck.com?

It was a surprise for me to find a comment like this *here*, but not on XMLbastard or XMLSuck.

Next time you decide to claim that somebody is 'inventing the history' - I think it will be much better to say it directly. The statement you're making is serious enough to hide it here.

I'm posting this comment to XMLBastard board so that you can explain what do you mean. If you'd like, of course.

A quick glance reveals they are either unaware of, ignoring, or inventing history selectively in order to support their negative views. This blatant behaviour is likely to mislead unaware users if they were to believe that what they read is by some authority, which it certainly isn't.

Contrary to their stated objectives of supporting the industry by being a forum for constructive criticism, it is my opinion these sites carry out a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom merely by their existence and by promulgating misinformation in support of their perhaps misunderstood assumptions and conclusions.

There already are established fora for making one's opinion heard and properly considered by due and fair process. Fragmenting the effort is unsupportive.

I would hope this is only ignorance and not maliciousness, but the effect is no less so and the tenor of the language used leads one to believe the reasons are nefarious.