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

Re: XML Redux

• From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
• To: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
• Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:50:51 -0500

Stephen Green scripsit:

> With all this discussion of types, is it still the main motivator
> behind using JSON or this XML-oriented variant of JSON
> that Javascript be able to parse the data natvively (or pretty
> much natively, perhaps with some pre- and/or post-processing)?

Well, clearly not.  But JSON is very much a language of wider
communication nowadays than just browser-server.

In addition, there's a convention that maps XML fragments onto pure
JSON -- not Badgerfish, but another one whose silly name I forget.
Each XML element becomes an object with three key-value pairs: "#name"
maps to the name, "#attrs" to the attributes (as a JSON object), and
"#children" to the children (as a JSON array of strings and/or objects).
This, of course, is exactly the MicroXML data model.

-- 
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax."                  John Cowan
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?"  cowan@ccil.org
  --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• References:
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>