He makes some good points that I didn't consider when first I hated upon XML. I agree that XML is better for its problem domain than s-expressions, but in that case the whole article is an apples to oranges comparison.

He claims that syntax is important, otherwise we'd still be using binary formats. If that's true then the only reason syntax is important is for humans, because machines can read binary formats just as well as anything else. So why compare it to s-expressions instead of to a human-friendly ideal? Is XML the best human-friendly markup language possible? Yes his paragraph is similarly readable in both forms, but would it be if wrapped in XML namespace clauses and an XML Schema? Would the s-expression version be if wrapped in a macro to parse text outside quotes as significant text?

The purpose of XML shouldn't be to make everything more XML-y, but to make everything easier. Maybe it does, in big enterprisey systems and between large data silos. Look at the recent ODF v. Office XML file formats. Have any of you been tempted to process Microsoft Office documents directly because now they're XML they must be easier than the old binary formats?

It's still not human friendly - you can't use the Jabber protocol by hand over telnet like you can use POP3, SMTP, IRC.