[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@gmail.com>
> To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:04 AM
> Subject: [xml-dev] 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?
|
