Re: [xml-dev] How long before services sending/receiving XML might need

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2021-11-12 11:42 -0800, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> JSON is a necessary evil because most 
> programmers have been trained to NOT be systemic 
> thinkers, but rather to concentrate on their own 
> particular module or component. JSON fits this 
> mentality well because JSON serializes cleanly 
> into Javascript objects, and reasonably well into Python objects.
In 2017 I summarized my personal opinion 
regarding "most programmers today" using JSON 
because it makes their job easier, it doesn't 
make the user's job easier when dealing with information exchange:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/horses-courses-perspective-xml-vs-json-discussion-ken-holman 

TL;DR - JSON is for tight coupling in 
programming, XML is for data description in interchange.

The subject line sending/receiving doesn't 
indicate whether the exchange is happening inside 
of the computer (coupling programs) or outside of 
the computer (interchange between information systems).

. . . . . Ken

>  XML has a complex DOM that's more difficult to 
> navigate because the W3C assumed that most 
> people would choose to use XPath rather than 
> the low-level DOM primitives, but XPath 
> notation was too different from Javascript dot 
> notation conceptually, so you STILL have people 
> who prefer using DOM (or worse, CSS selectors)
>
> Of course, I'm an information architect, not a 
> programmer, so what do I know. :-)
>
> Kurt Cagle
> Community/Managing Editor
> Data Science Central, A TechTarget Property
> <mailto:kcagle@techtarget.com>kcagle@techtarget.com 
> or <mailto:kurt.cagle@gmail.com>kurt.cagle@gmail.com
> 443-837-8725
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 8:05 AM Ihe Onwuka 
> <<mailto:ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>ihe.onwuka@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 5:37 AM Peter Flynn 
> <<mailto:peter@silmaril.ie>peter@silmaril.ie> wrote:
> 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.
>
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-schema-req>https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-schema-req
>
> 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.Â
> 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 JSONÂ  should be used for.Â
> Beyond the noise of JSON advocacy, what else is backing that up?

--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @US$125 (5 hours free) |
Essays (UBL, XML, etc.) http://www.linkedin.com/today/author/gkholman |