3 ms·
It's a troll post, but the point stands: JSON is reinventing XML. XML is ugly, but complicated JSON isn't much better IMO. It has an only slightly less human-u
by PeCaN 10y ago
It's a troll post, but the point stands: JSON is reinventing XML.
XML is ugly, but complicated JSON isn't much better IMO. It has an only slightly less human-unfriendly syntax: Why do I have to use double quotes on keys? Why are there no comments? Then come things like schemas, queries, and transformations: XSD, XPath, and XSLT are very powerful tools. Their implementation sucks, but it's arguably better than people coming up with their own half-documented solution whenever they need something XSD/XPath/XSLT provides.
- hyperpallium 10y agoXML protects JSON: people needing extra power choose the complexity in the XML ecosystem, keeping JSON simple. The problem is usages that grow in their need for power over time, with high switching costs. Instead of choosing, they add pressure to XMLify the JSON ecosystem. JSON's doom seems distant but inevitable, but it will instead be defeated by the rise of yet another format.
- vmasto 10y ago> Why there are no comments? Here's the answer: https://plus.google.com/+DouglasCrockfordEsq/posts/RK8qyGVaGSr https://plus.google.com/+DouglasCrockfordEsq/posts/RK8qyGVaG... Not sure if I agree with it or not, nevertheless that was the reasoning.
- hannob 10y agoJSON has huge advantages from a security perspective. The feature-richness of XML is also a richness of sources of security vulnerabilities.
- creshal 10y agoIs it even possible to make a 100% standards conforming parser that is not vulnerable to at least DoS attacks? (Automatically fetching XSDs e.g. sounds nice in practice, until you realize that it means your server will make HTTP requests to user-supplied URLs, so most parsers come with an option to disable it, which may or may not break documents relying on it.)