3 ms·

Nodes for data, attributes for metadata. I think you made a good argument, although I personally prefer the more mature XML tooling and metadata support for ve

• HolyHaddock 11y ago
  That's fine in theory, but it's not a universal heuristic, and even then, different smart well-intentioned people independently applying it won't necessarily come to the same result.
• krick 11y ago
  It's hardly answers the question, as strictly speaking there's no such thing as "metadata". Everything you can pass to another person can be described as "data", whether it is a color of your coat or the statement that you are describing the color of your coat. Basically, you can think of any attribute of an object as "metadata" as long as it can be only one per object and doesn't have any attributes itself, and both things can change easily and depend on the point of view. On the contrary, I don't remember one single case when the object was described easily using "node/attribute" separation, but couldn't be described as easily using JSON. In fact, I don't even think it's possible, as you can always make two children for each object: "attributes" and "nodes". So I guess it actually is unnecessary complication and not the benefit of using XML over JSON.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Nodes for data, attributes for metadata. Its a nice soundbite, but it ends up being less than useful in practice, because all metadata is data, and almost any data can be viewed as metadata, a distinction which is both subjective and strongly influenced by the use to which a consumer is putting the data rather than being determined on the basis solely of the inherent nature of the data.
  • andyjohnson0 11y ago
    Its a rule of thumb (heuristic). Judgement is still required. (A soundbite is something altogether different.)