earlier replies
Replying to @larsr_h
XML namespaces were a bad idea, and trying to cast HTML into XML turned out to be a bad idea, too. Trust me, I was there when it happened
11
Replying to @larsr_h
HTML was good enough, and nobody cared about such things as „well-formedness“ except a few romantic nerds. Namespaces were a mess that was bolted onto XML after the fact, and this too hard to grasp for people who copied stuff together.

Jun 28, 2020 · 5:20 PM UTC

2
2
Replying to @stilkov @larsr_h
All that made XML a better choice for people like us was exactly what made it a worse choice for the majority
1
1
I could argue it’s a case of “worse is better”, but I’m not even sure it is actually the worse thing that won
1
more replies
Replying to @stilkov @larsr_h
The bolted after the fact was the main issue - namespaced vs non-namespaced always creates confusion. The core idea to be able to aggregate xml from any source is conceptually nice but in reality always anyhow requires to process different sources.