OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?


> 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.

I agree with Eliot. Both XML and JSON are relevant and both have their own strengths. What matters in the end is that this is all arborescent, semi-structured data, and that both, in the end, need the same kind of technology (parsing, validating, transforming, querying, updating, storing, etc).

I hope that JSON will eventually reach a level of standardization across the entire stack similar to that of XML, and I would also welcome common standardization across both XML and JSON. JSON would also have a lot to gain by embracing all the work previously done on XML by the W3C. I heard Dana Florescu advocate several times, to give an example, that XML Schema's atomic types (like dates, times, etc) would be just as relevant to JSON as they are to XML.

Standardization is a necessary step for document stores to compete with relational databases in the long term. The ideas behind document stores (schemas-on-read, denormalization, etc) are beyond XML vs. JSON.

Kind regards,

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS