> When you would want to have the features of XML and would design it from scratch I'm quite sure it would have the complexity of XML again.

I don't think so. The problem with the XML stack is that it has been designed with some very "enterprisey" (for the lack of better term) scenarios in mind - stuff like SOAP. Consequently, it was all design by committee in the worst possible sense of the word, and it shows.

To see what I mean, take a look at XML Schema W3C specs. That's probably the worst part of it, so it should be readily apparent what I mean:

https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/

The other problem with XML is that it's rooted in SGML, and inherited a lot of its syntax and semantics, which were designed for a completely different use case - marking up documents. Consequently, the syntax is overly verbose, and some features are inconsistent for other scenarios - for example, if you use XML to describe structured data, when do you use attributes, and when do you use child elements? Don't forget that attributes are semantically unordered in XDM, while elements are ordered, but also that attributes cannot contain anything but scalar values and arrays thereof.

Oh, and then don't forget all the legacy stuff like DTD, which is mostly redundant in the face of XML Schema and XInclude, except it's still a required part of the spec.

I guess the TL;DR version of it is that XML today is kinda like Java - it was there for too long, including periods when our ideas of best practices were radically different, and all that was enshrined in the design, and then fossilized in the name of backwards compatibility.

One important takeaway from XML - why it was so successful, IMO - is that having a coherent, a tightly bound spec stack is a good thing. For example, with XML, when someone is talking about schemas, you can pretty much assume it's XML Schema by default (yes, there's also RELAX NG, but I think calling it schema is a misnomer, because it doesn't delve much into semantics of what it describes - it's more of a grammar definition language for XML). To transfer XML, you use XSLT. To query it, you use XPath or XQuery (which is a strict superset). And so on. With JSON, there's no such certainty.

The other thing that the XML stack didn't quite see fully through, but showed that it could be a nice thing, is its homoiconicity: e.g. XML Schema and XSLT being XML. Less so with XPath and XQuery, but there they had at least defined a canonical XML representation for it, which gives you most of the same advantages. Unfortunately, with XML it was just as often a curse as it was a blessing, because of how verbose and sometimes awkward its syntax is - anyone who wrote large amounts of XSLT especially knows what I'm talking about. On the other hand, at least XML had comments, unlike JSON!

Hey, maybe that's actually the test case? A data representation language must be concise enough, powerful enough, and flexible enough to make it possible to use it to define its own schema and transformations, without it being a painful experience, while also being simple enough that a single person can write a parser for it in a reasonable amount of time.