[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 00:04 -0700, Michael Champion wrote:
> - 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?
JSON is faster and easier for a Javascript engine to parse. Python is
faster and easier for a Python engine to parse. It's probably easier
and faster to (correctly) parse XML than JSON for an Python engine, and
vice versa.
In the end, as a long-certified XML doc head I think XML is just not
suited to the bit jewelry of highly structured data. It's more suited
to the sloppy exigencies of prose. I think all these rumblings are but
the sign of the poor fit that first became unmistakable when the first
WXS drafts were released, and I'll be amazed if there's any magic
nostrum to be brewed for this by Microsoft or anyone else.
> - 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?
It's a threat to XML for data exchange within Javascript (and rightly
so). I think that's all.
> - 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?
I'm so glad that mad era does seem to be ending. If I were really
feeling cheeky I'd propose XSLT2+XPath2 as counter-evidence, but I know
better. XSLT2 does actually keep its place quite well. It's parts of
XPath2 (and XQuery) that have gone off the rails, and neither is XML
syntax.
> - 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?
For my part I wish I had time to wind up for an "I told you so". I'm
too busy in the sewers trying to clean up the damned pooling mess. It's
no comfort that I believe I've foreseen the mess. If I were being
inexcusably flip, I could say "I guess I know what a politically
progressive soldier in Iraq feels like".
In many ways I think a vicious backlash from programming languages
against XML is just what XML needs right now.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org
Use CSS to display XML, part 2 - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss2-i.html
XML Output with 4Suite & Amara - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/20/py-xml.html
Use XSLT to prepare XML for import into OpenOffice Calc - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-oocalc/
Schema standardization for top-down semantic transparency - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think31.html
|
