Re: [xml-dev] RE: James Clark: XML versus the Web

[Rob Koberg <rob@koberg.com>]

Another big problem I forgot to mention is handling browser events.
XML or XML apps (XSL) in the browser cannot catch browser events.

-Rob

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Rob Koberg <rob@koberg.com> wrote:
>>
>> JSON was invented, not as a "Standard" but as a practical solution to one
>> problem, IMHO,  parsing XML in the browser wasn't universally supported.
>> But calling "eval()" was.  So why not just send JavaScript (in sheep's
>> clothing as "JSON") directly ?
>
> It is not sheep's clothing. It was in JS before it was named JSON.
> Another large problem for XML in the browser is the ability to GET XML
> from another domain. For XML you need to proxy it through your server
> or proxy it through some other service to turn it into JSON. For JSON
> you can use XMLHTTP (and use eval where I can see the sheep's clothing
> part) or call it with a script element along with a callback (JSONP -
> nekid wolf). Why XML has this security restriction placed on it and
> JSON/JS does not is kind of strange, but...
>
> I agree with David. XML is fine. It is just not the right choice for
> the browser.
>
> Namespaces are fine (and extremely useful!) for dev users and end
> users (who usually don't see it). It was my understanding that
> namespaces are/were hard for the parser developers. The discussions on
> this list commingle the concerns of the parser dev, the xml dev and
> the end user so that the real concerns of the parser dev become
> adopted as proof for the others.
>
> -Rob
>