Re: [xml-dev] What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking t

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

On 2/16/17, 9:05 AM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

    (In reference to JSON) “…because it hit a different point of mediocrity 
    that leaned more toward what programmers really wanted…”

Brilliant.

I agree completely with Simon’s assessment (his entire post, not just the pithy bit about JSON).

I was involved in the early attempts to define an XML representation of the STEP standard (a standard for the computer representation of complex 3-D models, a standard for which there was no standard serialization format, at least not in 1999). It became clear from that exercise that XML was not a good fit as a way to represent, much less serialize, complex business objects but because, as Simon says, it was better than anything else available at the time, people tried to use it.[ I had gotten involved at the behest of Yuri Rubinski because he wanted to find a way to integrate the SGML source of the documentation for components with the engineering definition of the components so that you could have a single point of definition for everything about the component. I don’t know that STEP ever succeeded in that effort.]

That’s why I’ve always found the XML vs. JSON debate to be pointless and sad: it’s a false dichotomy that does neither technology justice and wastes the valuable time of many people. I’m definitely pleased to see XSLT and XQuery embrace JSON because it shouldn’t matter.

Cheers,

E.

--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com