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

[John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Ghislain Fourny <gfourny@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:

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.

It's been said that whenever a programming language is standardized, it turns into Pascal.  Similarly, whenever a data representation is standardized, it turns into SGML.  If JSON embraces the work done by XML, it will become necessary in the name of simplicity to invent a new format that can do even less than JSON.

-- 

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org

Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,

The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"

It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,

But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.

        --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker

--

GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures