4 ms·
While I agree that it is frustrating to worry about offering things in different formats, JSON is not terrible, and it is much more compact while still being hu
by devmonk 16y ago
While I agree that it is frustrating to worry about offering things in different formats, JSON is not terrible, and it is much more compact while still being human readable. It is only natural that something easier to read and type than XML would suffer a period of overlap with XML, etc.
- zdw 16y agoNobody manually enters all the tags for XML/HTML/SGML - you ought to be using an editor that supports some combination of tag shortcuts, tag completion, Zen Coding, or some other schema-aware entry method. I'd go nuts too if I had to enter all the tags by hand, if my left index/ring fingers didn't fall off first.
- devmonk 16y agoThe point is that XML, like any format, is not perfect. If you get the chance to transition to using JSON or another well-used less flawed format in the future, why not? Some clarifications: * XML's End tags/elements are visual noise and cause additional unnecessary data to need to be stored. * Greater thans, less thans, and slashes are more visual noise and less intuitive and readable than the brackets, commas, and colons in JSON. * The fact that you can have values as attributes or as element values has caused confusion since the beginning. Attributes allow 1:1, but schemas can describe 1:1 as element values even though the same element could otherwise appear multiple times and be 1:*. Why should you be wasting time having to decide which to use when you are trying to define a format? Few bust on XML because they think that would be lunacy, since it is so prevalent. If everyone uses it, it must be better right?