It's not just readability. XML has some serious issues when used as a configuration file format rather than as document markup. It has features oriented towards document markup that get in the way of writing data structures, and it lacks convenient features for writing data structures that yaml-like languages have.

First, a quick disclaimer: Apache conf format is not really XML. It leverages XML-like syntax but it's mostly not XML and avoids most of the serious problems that XML tends to bring, which I'll explain in more detail below.

XML was designed to provide structure to documents, it was not designed as a configuration syntax or a data serialization format. XML is meant for a document that already exists in its own right as a document, where the XML is added on as a layer to aid automated semantic understanding of that document's structure. It is not meant to directly represent programming data structures. As such, XML tags are designed to pop out and be visible from significant amounts of text that is not metadata. When there's more tags than text, as is usually the case when you try to use XML to write programming data structures, XML winds up being hopelessly verbose, and it's hard to avoid errors writing it (like misspelling end tags, forgetting a slash, putting end tags in the wrong order, etc.)

When not used for its intended purpose, XML winds up being hard for humans to write directly and hard(er than yaml and json) to write programs to parse it. In yaml and json, there's a standard, mostly direct mapping to common data structures in most high-level languages. With XML you have to make a lot of trivial decisions to make use of features that weren't designed for what you're trying to do. The most obvious examples are the distinction between attributes and tags: what does each one mean? What do tagnames represent? What do attribute values represent? What do attribute names represent? How do you handle CDATA that has more XML in it? XML is designed to elegantly handle something like this:

<A>first section <B>marked up section</B> second section</A>

But this kind of structure is horrible for a configuration file, unless the CDATA sections are a parsed language of their own and parsed externally, which is essentially what Apache does. If you're trying to use XML to specify data structures like lists and trees, it's messy. Consider this example:

<VirtualHost>
<ServerName>my.server.domain.com</ServerName>
<DocumentRoot>/var/lib/www/my.server.domain.com</DocumentRoot>
</VirtualHost>

You might envision "VirtualHost" to be an item in a list, where the value of that item is a dictionary with subkeys specifying "ServerName" and "DocumentRoot." But in fact, there's more to it than that. An XML parser also gives you all the whitespace in between those two tags. You can discard it, you can write checks to ensure that nothing ever ends up in that unused CDATA area by mistake, you can write tools to generate the XML-- but no matter what method you choose it's something you have to think about that just doesn't come up if you are using a language designed for writing programming data structures instead of abusing one designed for marking up text documents.

And that example highlights another problem with XML which is a flat out lack of support for common programming data types such as lists and integers. In the example above, how would you know that "<VirtualHost>" represents an item in a list, but "<ServerName>" should be a key in a dictionary? XML doesn't help you there, every parser decides for itself.