On 12/11/2021 08:12, Marcus Reichardt wrote:
> At the risk of sounding pedantic, i don't agree at all with what you
> said, Mukul ;)
>
> [...] XML's other uses - as a preferred payload format for web
> services, and as go-to language for configuration and other metadata
> - have been on the decline for about 15 years as well.
Many of these were bandwagons (with the exception of text delivery).
Very attractive at the time ("Look! Only one format!").
What is being overlooked is that in the context of government IT, factors relating to the publishing and SGML heritage of XML are a bit of a red herring.
Aside from the core use case of contracts and validation, XML usage for document exchange in government IT derives from it offering schema technology that was intentionally designed to support object oriented modelling use cases.
This is explicitly set out in Section 5 below which variously and explicitly mentions the concepts of class, inheritance and derived types.
JSON OTOH was designed with a set of disjoint primitive types and whereas JSON Schema may have presented an opportunity to address deficiencies in it's OO modeling capability, it was deliberately not taken.
That people seriously expect to be able to slot JSON into a complex modelling use case that it was intentionally not designed for is testament to the degree of FUD surrounding exactly what JSON should be used for.
Beyond the noise of JSON advocacy, what else is backing that up?
