[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Python and JSON vs XML???
Who _hasn't_ designed a text based data representation language? ;-} It would be interesting to collect these designs and examine them for common characteristics. Some features of my last effort that I suspect would appear in a number of others: - No attributes and no "normalization". - No DTDs or entities. - Use of brackets { [ ] } etc. instead of end tags. - Sequences (a la XQuery) at the document level. - Parse much faster than XML (of course). Bob Foster http://xmlbuddy.com/ Pete Cordell wrote: > FWIW - I've also developed a text based data representation language, > including on the wire format and, more significantly from what I have > seen of other proposals, a message specification language. > > I lowered the priority on it because the force behind XML and XML Schema > seemed to huge too compete against (Betamax / VHS type arguments etc.) > Whether the observations made below represent a genuine move away from > XML, or represent a small pocket of newly discovered dissenters I don't > know. Personally, in the data representation space I find that > commercially I'm interested in XML Schema being successful, but > aesthetically it would be nice for something like my proposal to be > successful. > > I targetted this at the IETF, but at the time they seemed to be going > the W3C schema route. Maybe I should knock on their door again! > > For those interested in more, I call it Lumas (Language for Universal > Message Abstraction and Specification) and there is a taster at: > > http://tech-know-ware.com/lumas/lumas-example.html > > and a spec at: > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-cordell-lumas-03.txt > > Pete. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Champion" > <michaelc.champion@g...> > To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...> > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:04 AM > Subject: Python and JSON vs XML??? > > > I note with interest that the world seems to be going in several > directions at once with respect to the relationship between > programming language objects and XML. > For some time now we've seen the JSON "fat-free alternative to XML" > http://www.crockford.com/JSON/xml.html direction that some in the AJAX > world are taking to address both XML's inefficiency and the mismatch > with programming languages. Now I see that many in the Python > community have a similar attitude toward XML > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/08/24/py-xml.html and encourage its use > only when necessary to exchange data with non-Python apps. > > W3C seems to be going in a more conventional direction, thinking > about a working group to define schema patterns for databinding > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2005Jul/0000.html > Likewise it is wrestling (behind the member-only firewall, sorry) with > the results of the XML Binary Characterization working group's > suggestion to standardize a binary XML format to address XML's > perceived inefficiency as a data interchange format in some scenarios. > > It might be inferred from > http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1837433,00.asp and > http://commnet.microsoftpdc.com/content/sessions.aspx (query for > "XML") that Microsoft is addressing the programming - XML mismatch not > by moving away from XML but by supporting XML-friendly concepts deeper > in programming languages. (Details will be announced at PDC, until > then ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies). > > I'm not sure what to make of all this, other than that there is a lot > of dissatisfaction with the status quo with respect to XML and > programming, and a lot of experimentation going on to address it. > Some approaches might threaten XML's story as a universal data > interchange format, or might revitalize it by scraping off the cruft, > we shall see. A few questions I'd be interested in hearing others' > take on: > > - I'm trying to understand whether JSON has a value proposition > outside of AJAX scenarios. Is JSON or Python significantly faster to > parse into usable objects than data-bound XML? Is anyone suggesting > it (or some Pythonic equivalent) to address the types of use cases > that binary XML is targeted at? > > - Could something like JSON become Yet Another Infoset Serialization > Format You Have To Deal With if binary XML gets momentum and opens up > the possibility of alternative serializations for different > environments? Or is it just conceptually easier to deal with a single > object syntax rather than fooling with XML when you have the luxury of > working in the same dynamic language in all parts of a system, so and > this really isn't a threat to XML's value proposition? > > - The idea of programming languages in XML syntax seems to be on the > wane (other than XSLT of course, which is not *really* a programming > lanuage even if it is Turing-complete). The idea of integrating XML > ideas into programming languge syntax seems to be on the rise, e.g. > the JSON and Python stuff, E4X, C-omega and friends, Java's apparent > plans in the Dolphin release, etc. Anyone disagree? > > - What happened to the "XML is text, dammit" advocates who used to > rant about how all this is misguided nonsense? Quietly getting their > work done, obliviously watching TV in the retirement home, lurking > patiently to say "I TOLD YOU SO" when the smelly stuff hits the fan, > or what?
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|