3 ms·
It's an interesting article, but I just don't care about these supposed advantages. Sure, there's XPath, but there's also JSON Path. As for using XML to trans
by zeveb 11y ago
It's an interesting article, but I just don't care about these supposed advantages. Sure, there's XPath, but there's also JSON Path. As for using XML to transform XML…why not just use Lisp to transform S-expressions?
JSON is hardly great: rather, it's the second-worst of the popular data interchange formats today. XML is the worst.
ASN.1 isn't really popular, which is good; I'd hate to have to decide between ASN.1 and XML.
- znpy 11y agoJsonPath is no standard and last time I checked there only was a quick-and-dirty JavaScript implementation.
- henryscala 11y agoWhat about Protobuf? It seems to me it is lightweight than xml and asn.1, though heavyweight than json, but it suits most of the case. If JSON has JSONPath and JSONSchema. It looks like it is another XML, then.
- zeveb 11y ago> What about Protobuf? For what they are, I quite like protobufs. I tend to prefer something with a human-readable version, but protobufs do get the job done. Human-readability is why canonical S-expressions (e.g. (3:foo3:bar), which can be displayed as (foo bar), ("foo" #626172#), (|Zm9v|3:bar) or any permutation thereof) are still the best thing around.