4 ms·

> JSON has become the go-to schemaless format between languages, despite being verbose and having problems with typing. Transit aims to be a general-purpose suc

by gioele 11y ago

> JSON has become the go-to schemaless format between languages, despite being verbose and having problems with typing. Transit aims to be a general-purpose successor to JSON here. XML has become the go-to schemaless format between languages, despite being verbose and having problems with typing. JSON aims to be a general-purpose successor to XML here.

zcdziura 11y ago
History repeats itself, after all.
brianberns 11y ago
Yes, except that XML has a schema (XSD).
- nmeofthestate 11y ago
  Ahem. http://json-schema.org/ http://json-schema.org/
  - orless 11y ago
    Quoting http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-core.html http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-core.html: "This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2013."
    - orless 11y ago
      ... which, by the way, does not mean that JSON Schema is bad or unusable. I actually quite like it, it has certaint elegance. Just not really standard.
- tel 11y ago
  That's an exterior thing. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about XML the schemaless markup language.
vocaro 11y ago
XML is not schemaless. It was designed to be extensible through schemas. It's in the name, after all: eXtensible Markup Language. XML also doesn't suffer the problems of a limited set of pre-defined types that JSON has. Its type system is extensible through schemas.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > XML is not schemaless. Yes, it is, though there are a variety of schema schemes that can be used with XML. > It was designed to be extensible through schemas. It was designed to be extensible through custom tags (in fact, all tags are custom tags); it can be optionally be restricted through the use of schemas, not extended. > XML also doesn't suffer the problems of a limited set of pre-defined types that JSON has. Yes, it does, with an even smaller number of types. (Strings, with a couple different representations.) > Its type system is extensible through schemas. No, it isn't. Its structure can be constrained through schemas (XML Schema, Relax NG, etc.), which can provide a means of modeling a different type system on top of the data structure supported by XML, but that isn't really "extending" XMLs type system any more than using a Haskell compiler to generate x86 machine code is "extending" the type system of x86 machine code; its just providing a completely separate type system on a different layer. Also, no matter how you view this, its not a distinction between XML and JSON, since you can do the same thing with JSON, and just as there are a variety of different schema standards that do this for XML, there are a variety that do the same thing for JSON.

by gioele 11y ago

zcdziura 11y ago

History repeats itself, after all.

brianberns 11y ago

Yes, except that XML has a schema (XSD).

nmeofthestate 11y ago
Ahem. http://json-schema.org/ http://json-schema.org/
- orless 11y ago
  Quoting http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-core.html http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-core.html: "This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2013."
  - orless 11y ago
    ... which, by the way, does not mean that JSON Schema is bad or unusable. I actually quite like it, it has certaint elegance. Just not really standard.
tel 11y ago
That's an exterior thing. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about XML the schemaless markup language.

vocaro 11y ago

XML is not schemaless. It was designed to be extensible through schemas. It's in the name, after all: eXtensible Markup Language. XML also doesn't suffer the problems of a limited set of pre-defined types that JSON has. Its type system is extensible through schemas.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> XML is not schemaless. Yes, it is, though there are a variety of schema schemes that can be used with XML. > It was designed to be extensible through schemas. It was designed to be extensible through custom tags (in fact, all tags are custom tags); it can be optionally be restricted through the use of schemas, not extended. > XML also doesn't suffer the problems of a limited set of pre-defined types that JSON has. Yes, it does, with an even smaller number of types. (Strings, with a couple different representations.) > Its type system is extensible through schemas. No, it isn't. Its structure can be constrained through schemas (XML Schema, Relax NG, etc.), which can provide a means of modeling a different type system on top of the data structure supported by XML, but that isn't really "extending" XMLs type system any more than using a Haskell compiler to generate x86 machine code is "extending" the type system of x86 machine code; its just providing a completely separate type system on a different layer. Also, no matter how you view this, its not a distinction between XML and JSON, since you can do the same thing with JSON, and just as there are a variety of different schema standards that do this for XML, there are a variety that do the same thing for JSON.