Re: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0

[rjelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>]

 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:06:48 +0000, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 
 wrote:
>> I think we need to focus on the greatest need.  I considered 
>> responding to the earlier "hysteria" comment by saying that most folks 
>> on this thread, and certainly James Clark's post were not "running 
>> scared" of JSON.  For my part, I embrace it, and I know quite a few 
>> others do who still want XML to be simplified.
>>
> I don't think it's a case of "running scared". I think it's a case of
> trying to learn from JSON how much could be achieved with something
> much simpler than we have today, but without losing the things we
> really value about XML.

 If the lesson learned from JSON is that it is just simpler, then people 
 are not actually looking at JSON.

 JSON is actually richer in its infoset: it has numbers, arrays, 
 structs, strings, boolean, etc.   It does not have simplicity in its 
 infoset, it has convenience and familiarity to programmers: alignment 
 with JavaScript and C-ish languages.

 So saying "lets remove some syntax, because that will make us simpler 
 and more like JSON" doesn't accord with reality: people could equally be 
 saying "lets add some syntax, because that will make us richer and more 
 like JSON."  Seeing nothing but syntactic "simplicity" in JSON seems 
 deeply superficial to me IYSWIM.

 Imagine if the same minimalist methodology was applied to JSON: what is 
 the difference between a number and a string, or a boolean and a string? 
 they are just tokens so lets make everything strings;  what is the 
 difference between a structure and an array? nothing... so lets dump 
 arrays.  Doing that and you get close to what would be minimal XML too: 
 and we already have a syntax for that: Windows property files. That 
 people have moved *away* from property files is a sign that sheer 
 minimalism is just not adequate as a method.

 Cheers
 Rick Jelliffe