I’m going to just argue the exact opposite of the article: xml and json are both structured data formats useful for tree like data graphs, such as objects.
Whether that was the intended purpose when xml was designed is irrelevant. It’s what xml is used for in almost every case.
The author also doesn’t suggest what should be used instead to encode structured data, or perhaps more importantly what should have been used to encode graph like things such as map/lists/objects in the 2000’s. Json really hasn’t been an alternative until quite recently (10 years ago?).
In fact reading the article carefully I fail to see the author argue why xml shouldn’t be used as a data format either.
Whether that was the intended purpose when xml was designed is irrelevant. It’s what xml is used for in almost every case.
The author also doesn’t suggest what should be used instead to encode structured data, or perhaps more importantly what should have been used to encode graph like things such as map/lists/objects in the 2000’s. Json really hasn’t been an alternative until quite recently (10 years ago?).
In fact reading the article carefully I fail to see the author argue why xml shouldn’t be used as a data format either.