Stephen,MicroXML, like XML before it, failed to explicitly acknowledge the architecture of the Web, soit will fail on the Web too, IMHO. Failure on the web has little to do with namespaces, whichis the dominant 'problem' addressed by MicroXML.If it had included simple hyperlinks, @href, @src, @type, @rel, it would have a better chance atsucceeding on the Web.But I think the major impediment to adoption on the Web is the browser, which plays nicely withhtml/css, images and javascript but not with anything else. So it is simply what Jirka identifies: developerscan use json-p across origins to get access to the data their applications demand, so XML isas a result a non-starter.Funny thing, I only recently came across the SLink proposal and some commentary about itfrom the browser crowd. It seems that in the drive to eliminate 'application' semantics fromXML, the application called the Web was eliminated also.Peter
From: Stephen D Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
Sent: April 29, 2013 09:02
To: Jirka Kosek
Cc: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML's greatest cultural advantage over JSON
Just comparing the time it took for XML to be adequatelysupported in RDBMSs and application frameworks like.NET and Java and the time it has taken for it to be adequatelysupported in Javascript (and browsers for that matter) andyou get the idea the latter have either been rather tardy orhave lacked strong user demand, or there has been someother major blocker not suffered by RDBMSs and applicationframeworks. It's probably too late to think that that will everbe fixed. MicroXML doesn't seem to have made any impacton the problem. Probably nothing will. (IMO of course)
----Stephen D Green
On 29 April 2013 09:50, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:
On 28.4.2013 14:22, Simon St.Laurent wrote:I think that story is different. Javascript in browser doesn't have
> XML had a chance with an open-minded crowd of people eager to embrace
> it. By and large, we utterly failed to convince them. Once other
> options emerged, they ran there.
usable XML API (DOM is simply ... DOM), but evaluating JSON with eval()
at that time was very easy (do you still remember E4X?). Also given the
browser security model you are unable to fetch cross-site XML resources,
but you can do the same with JSON-P. So with JSON it was possible to
walk around limitations in browser, nothing more. With better XML API in
browser and more reasonable security model situation between JSON/XML in
Web front-end development could be very different.
Jirka
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional XML consulting and training services
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------