Eh, as XML rants go I prefer this one from Graydon Hoare (lead designer of Mozilla's Rust): http://www.rdb.com/demo/XML/
It colorfully beats around the bush a bit, but its primary points are:
1. any lossless coding of bits can be cajoled into representing anything, the important question is whether it's a convenient coding.
2. the fact that so many XML formats have sub-languages embedded into strings means that nearly all XML processing requires another, higher level of software to fully parse the document. (it also is evidence that XML wasn't that convenient of an encoding to begin with).
3. just because you can write a document of XML expressing some logical idea doesn't mean that the idea is implementable. For example, the "Spacecraft Markup Language" (which is a real thing, or was).
It colorfully beats around the bush a bit, but its primary points are:
1. any lossless coding of bits can be cajoled into representing anything, the important question is whether it's a convenient coding.
2. the fact that so many XML formats have sub-languages embedded into strings means that nearly all XML processing requires another, higher level of software to fully parse the document. (it also is evidence that XML wasn't that convenient of an encoding to begin with).
3. just because you can write a document of XML expressing some logical idea doesn't mean that the idea is implementable. For example, the "Spacecraft Markup Language" (which is a real thing, or was).