[stochastastic]

Ha!

... that’s a laugh of bitter jealousy. I’ve dealt with XML, but I’ve never with XML that came with a schema, or which would have reliably followed one. Not saying schema-less formats are great, but at least I can eyeball them to see what is going on.

[hinkley]

XML turned everyone into a language designer during an era where we already knew that language design was a rare skill.

If I saw a schema, which I often didn’t, it usually didn’t say what the author thought it said. To a first order approximation, all the good ones I saw came from one tool (XMLSpy possibly?)

Namespaces ended up in a sort of uncanny valley that I can’t quite do justice to.

[agumonkey]

I'd even classical OO did the same.

[riffraff]

> but I’ve never with XML that came with a schema

how about docbook? It's been a while, but I think even eclipse's project.xml used to have a schema, and would validate it if you tried modifying it yourself.

[shmerl]

Schemas are good. Even JSON now has one.