3 ms·

Well-structured data like this is better encapsulated in XML: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <address street="Church Street"> <specifi

by creshal 10y ago

Well-structured data like this is better encapsulated in XML: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <address street="Church Street"> <specifiers> <key length=""/> <value type="uint32" scale="nanolightseconds">5</value> <city> <![CDATA[ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-15"?> <name>Church City</name> ]]> </city> </specifiers> </address> Isn't that much more legible and understandable? (I hate XML. So much. This shouldn't be a valid document in any language.)

coredog64 10y ago
Why not both? https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com.ibm.dp.doc/json_jsonx.html https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com...
- dvcc 10y ago
  Just think, there were even multiple versions of JSONx so someone somewhere had to be using it.
  - creshal 10y ago
    It's part of a bigger product (WebSphere), so hopefully it's just being dragged along and not still under development.
NeutronBoy 10y ago
While I get your point, the XML document includes so much more information than the JSON example. Encoding, version, data types, 'scale', response length, etc. Please try not to make any false equivalences :)