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

Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking t

• From: Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:10:46 +0000

On 02/18/2017 06:33 PM, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
> I found this quote in an article by Bruce Johnson
> 
> The single biggest tradeoff and architecture question you need to
> answer – do you want complexity in the data or in the usage.
> 
> I agree with it. You do not get a free lunch by using a "simpler"
> data format unless your domain of concern is relatively trivial.

Actually I think your last sentence is even better. It phrases politely
what many of us might say more forcefully among ourselves.

> Which brings up a seldom mentioned point. JSON is a developer
> centric format. Who other than a developer would want to encourage a
> state of affairs that requires more and more functionality to
> manifest as application code 

I think that's a little harsh — it reminds me of the old joke about
COBOL being the language of choice among programmers wanting to enhance
their long-term employment prospects. Which was funny in the late 1970s
but has now become embarrassing.

There are certainly developers mature enough to select a data format
that is appropriate for the task, and who are well aware of the balance
between complexity in the data format and complexity in the processing.

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well XML vs JSON is an issue is because the JSON community see their
> ecosystem as replacing rather than co-existing alongside other
> ecosystems (XML in particular).

But the JSON community are programmers. XML _per se_ has nothing to do
with programming.


> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Here is kinda how I see it. How do others see it?
>
> *         |        Fields       |    Literature
> -----------------------------------------------
> Ephemeral | ie messages: JSON   |     HTML  
> -----------------------------------------------
> Stored    | ie records: XML+XSD |     XML  

But I now frequently find Stored/Fields using JSON.


> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> Isn’t XML necessarily about data, i.e., data-focused, data-centric?

Nope. Nothing whatever to do with it. XML is for text. Its use for data
is a great convenience in some circumstances, but that's not what it was
designed for.

///Peter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>

• References:
  • What are the practical, negative consequences of thinking thatattributes are metadata?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • RE: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>