HTML is there, other kinds of XML are avoidable. SVG is irrelevant, cause nobody uses it. Don't forget: you don't need to read XML specs to write working HTML.
On 10/19/13, Alexander S. <alex0pla...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/10/18 Dmitrij D. Czarkoff <czark...@gmail.com>: >> Szymon Olewniczak said: >>> Another advantage of XML is its adaptation. We've already have MathML, >>> SVG and many many others[1] all build on top of XML. >> >> SVG and MathML are probably the best arguments against XML ever. I am yet >> to >> see two SVG libraries that would render sufficiently complex >> spec-complient >> SVG equally. And I have no hope for seeing any spec-complient SVG >> rendering >> library ever. >> >> MathML is yet worse. To save words: http://aiju.de/rant/XML/MathML > > I'd not agree that SVG render problems are due to XML parsing. I think > it's just that anything that attempts to draw SVG according to a spec > must be *very* capable, with all those filters and transforms and > animations and ecmascripts. It might as well be a TeX extension, and > we would have the same (actually, probably even more) problems. > >
