[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: James Clark: XML versus the Web

• From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:11:15 +0000

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:36:40 +1100
rjelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:

>  XML v JSON
> 
>  Does it have to be either/or, in our imagination?
> 
>  What about building JSON into XML by replacing XML's attribute
> syntax?


Nice mix Rick. 
  I'm more interested in James other comment, 
quote:
Then there are the specs. For JSON, you have a 10-page RFC, with the
meat being a mere 4 pages. For XML, you have XML 1.0, XML Namespaces,
XML Infoset, XML Base, xml:id, XML Schema Part 1 and XML Schema Part 2.
Now you could actually quite easily take XML 1.0, ditch DTDs, add XML
Namespaces, xml:id, xml:base and XML Infoset and end up with a
reasonably short (although more than 10 pages), coherent spec. (I think
Tim Bray even did a draft of something like this once.) But in 10 years
the W3C and its membership has not cared enough about simplicity and
coherence to take any action on this.
end quote.

That seems a nice mix. Rather than upping the existing XML to rev + 1,
why not have a.n.other rec, doing just this and have the integration,
leaving XML as is for those that don't want to move?

-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
  • Re: James Clark: XML versus the Web
    • From: rjelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>