• From: Joe Fawcett <joefawcett@h...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:46:45 +0000

> From: petexmldev@c...
> To: len.bullard@u...; simonstl@s...; xml-dev@l...
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:31:59 +0000
> Subject: Re:  ten years later, time to repeat it?
>
> I don't have the breadth of experience that many on this list have, but to
> me mixed content seems pretty important to a document oriented view. In
> that scenario, in a world where few things are ever perfect, XML seems about
> as good as you can get (entities, namespaces and other things that people
> grumble about aside).
>
> This provision for document features does compromise XML for purely
> data-applications though, where JSON seems to be better.
>
> My view is that the world could do with 2 data formats, something XML-like
> primarily for documents and something JSON-like for pure data. In this
> view, tools like XSLT would be able to consume both formats (possibly using
> some form of auto-detection and using some form of XML infoset common
> intermediate form) and maybe even be able to output both formats (via some
> kind of switch).
>
> That said, JSON seems to be contaminated with JavaScript cruft. For
> example, instead of:
>
> "foo": 123
>
> you should be able to do:
>
> foo: 123
>
You can use that in JSON if you prefer, the quotes are only needed for property names with spaces.

Joe
http://joe.fawcett.name

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: John Snelson <john.snelson@o...>

• References:
  • RE: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>