Re: [xml-dev] It's too late to improve XML ... lessons learned?

["Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@fromoldbooks.org>]

On Fri, 2021-12-31 at 23:05 +0000, Damian Morris wrote:
> Also, where there are no type names it’s much harder to put a
> conceptual (ie, abstract) data hierarchy together that relates to the
> schema only.
> 
> Without types, all data hierarchies are actual - ie, for a specific
> implementation - rather than abstract, for a category of
> implementations.
> 
> Thus (at least, this is how I read it), Liam’s allocation of JSON for
> implementation-specific data specifications (and thus also vendor-,
> or implementation-specific APIs) and XML for standardised (vendor-,
> or implementation-neutral) ones.

In particular JSON is great for ad-hoc formats designed by a developer
for one particular use. JSON is program-centric, where XML is document-
centric. As a result, JSON is primarily for data that appears, is
transmitted, and vanishes in a fleeting moment; XML is primarily for
data that endures.

If you're writing a program, it's super easy to load JSON in most
languages into native objects. But it's not super easy to load XML, and
you don't get the objects you want (unless you wanted what you got, but
that's unlikely). JSON is quick and dirty :), load-and-use, easy for a
developer, but XML takes planning and thinking.



-- 
Liam Quin, https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/
Available for XML/Document/Information Architecture/XSLT/
XSL/XQuery/Web/Text Processing/A11Y training, work & consulting.
Barefoot Web-slave, antique illustrations:  http://www.fromoldbooks.org