Then fix the software, not the format!

Erich: Of course that I know XML’s obstination on manually matched closing tags is intentional - That and several other points simplifying SGML were what in the end allowed SGML to succeed (and wildly). However, I still not agree. If you have a tool that generates broken files (which are expected to be read, no less, by any other arbitrary tool which does not require to be very bright), whose fault is it? The file format? No - The generator’s. Besides, if you have a configuration format that’s expected to be used by al kinds of tools, and sent over every conceivable type of configuration channel (including slow and expensive ones, such as mobile phones), or that can contain arbitrarily deeply nested structures and become just huge, shouldn’t your priority be to make the protocol less repetitive instead of more? If you want a format to be robust, yes, you should insist on well-balancedness (what’s the last time you were able to compile C code with unmatched braces?), and reject unbalanced documents (possibly even, yes, pointing out where the match was probably broken - Yes, this last point favors XML over simple braces, but still, a compiler often makes a decent job at finding where a nesting problem lies)… Yes, I don’t have the authority to question what has become a world standard - But I still have to be persuaded XML is the way to go for many (no, of course, not all) of its uses. No, I’m not pushing YAML too hard - I just happened to like it for several uses, but I’m far from an informed fan. I’m just bashing XML, which is fun enough for me ;-) Oh, and about your blog: Right, it seems the culprit is Google Reader. Planet links just fine, and using RSS 1.0, the only link I get is the right one. Planet’s RSS 2.0 generator should be to blame then.