4 ms·

You aren't responding to the comment here, you are just reasserting the article's position. I'd argue there is not another format that is obviously better for e

You aren't responding to the comment here, you are just reasserting the article's position. I'd argue there is not another format that is obviously better for every data storage or exchange use case, or that surpasses all of XML's benefits while minimizing all of its downsides. I don't want to look at XML, but I do understand why it is being used.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gambler 7y ago
Abuse of XML killed it a format. JSON is absolutely shit for semantic markup, and yet developers today routinely use it for documents because "XML is bad". They contrive ridiculous schemes for adding metadata and type information. They use it to generate HTML even when HTML takes less space. Finally, we regressed from XTML to HTML5. Buy-buy namespaces and parsing consistency.
- sedachv 7y ago
  SGML being replaced by XML being replaced by JSON is great proof that the idea of progress in tech is at best a myth and at worst a lie.
  - barberousse 7y ago
    I mean, the idea of progress in general is barely agreeable outside of recent strides in the physical sciences
- myrryr 7y ago
  Right, but, if given a choice of what to use, between XML and JSON, I'll pick JSON every time. XML is a complete mess. Have you SEEN it's spec? You can put JSONs spec in a single page. XMLs spec, not so much. Hell, most of the XML parsers don't support the spec, and the ones which do, historically have been riddled with security holes. JSON over XML was simplicity over a crazy spec built by a bunch of companies all wanting to shove their own crazyness into it.
  - sedachv 7y ago
    http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON#Data_portability_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON#Data_portability_issues XML has XSD and RELAX NG for more than 15 years now. https://json-schema.org/ https://json-schema.org/ is still a draft.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
    XML spec is longer than one page, granted, but it's about three times shorter than YAML spec. And XML spec describe not only the XML syntax, but also a basic form of validation (DTD), which include references. Basic XML has only five special symbols (<, >, ', ", and &) and can be parsed in linear time. (Namespaces complicate things somewhat.)
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    For a non human-edited data storage or exchange that’s fine. Json is worse for human editable data though. Xml might not be the best alternative there but it beats json for things like small configs. It’s not as simple as saying “everywhere xml is used, json would be a better choice”.
  - jackcviers3 7y ago
    That's because json's spec isn't complete. It is predicated on the language interpreting it to be able to just eval the structure and work with the data [1] 1. http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php
- redwall_hp 7y ago
  > They use it to generate HTML even when HTML takes less space. The fact that MobileDoc exists makes me physically ill. Something that can be expressed with one line containing a paragraph element and an italic tag is over a dozen lines of JSON spam.
jackcviers3 7y ago
Your data storage format shouldn't be human readable. The data transferred over the wire shouldn't be human readable. It should be a binary serialized data format, probably encrypted, definitely compressed. Yes, storage is cheap. Bandwidth is not. Also, you really don't want a human that intercepts your data to be able to read it. Additionally, your data structue only makes sense in the context of your domain, which usually has been modeled in your program(s) that work in that domain, and thus it will be better if you deserialize it within tools that understand that domain. If you feel the need for a general purpose deserialization protocol, there are several available - Avro/Protobuf, etc. Binary encoded data can often be decoded without consuming the entire document. Sax-paparser-like reading requires at least reading an open and a close before the data is useful. String serialization is a wasteful endeavor. It makes life easy for devs because it takes one less step to read the data in a text editor or log message, but quite often requires hacks to model things like recursive or self-referential data structures, and wastes space by repeating property names constantly for every item within the serialized structure. It's predicated on four of the fallacies of distributed computing, namely - bandwidth is infinite, the network is secure, transport cost is zero, and latency is zero. It is a solution looking for a problem, and because we are lazy, we don't build tools that would make binary serialized formats just as easy to use as json/yaml/xml.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gambler 7y ago

Abuse of XML killed it a format. JSON is absolutely shit for semantic markup, and yet developers today routinely use it for documents because "XML is bad". They contrive ridiculous schemes for adding metadata and type information. They use it to generate HTML even when HTML takes less space. Finally, we regressed from XTML to HTML5. Buy-buy namespaces and parsing consistency.

sedachv 7y ago
SGML being replaced by XML being replaced by JSON is great proof that the idea of progress in tech is at best a myth and at worst a lie.
- barberousse 7y ago
  I mean, the idea of progress in general is barely agreeable outside of recent strides in the physical sciences
myrryr 7y ago
Right, but, if given a choice of what to use, between XML and JSON, I'll pick JSON every time. XML is a complete mess. Have you SEEN it's spec? You can put JSONs spec in a single page. XMLs spec, not so much. Hell, most of the XML parsers don't support the spec, and the ones which do, historically have been riddled with security holes. JSON over XML was simplicity over a crazy spec built by a bunch of companies all wanting to shove their own crazyness into it.
- sedachv 7y ago
  http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON#Data_portability_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON#Data_portability_issues XML has XSD and RELAX NG for more than 15 years now. https://json-schema.org/ https://json-schema.org/ is still a draft.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
  XML spec is longer than one page, granted, but it's about three times shorter than YAML spec. And XML spec describe not only the XML syntax, but also a basic form of validation (DTD), which include references. Basic XML has only five special symbols (<, >, ', ", and &) and can be parsed in linear time. (Namespaces complicate things somewhat.)
- alkonaut 7y ago
  For a non human-edited data storage or exchange that’s fine. Json is worse for human editable data though. Xml might not be the best alternative there but it beats json for things like small configs. It’s not as simple as saying “everywhere xml is used, json would be a better choice”.
- jackcviers3 7y ago
  That's because json's spec isn't complete. It is predicated on the language interpreting it to be able to just eval the structure and work with the data [1] 1. http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php
redwall_hp 7y ago
> They use it to generate HTML even when HTML takes less space. The fact that MobileDoc exists makes me physically ill. Something that can be expressed with one line containing a paragraph element and an italic tag is over a dozen lines of JSON spam.

jackcviers3 7y ago

Your data storage format shouldn't be human readable. The data transferred over the wire shouldn't be human readable. It should be a binary serialized data format, probably encrypted, definitely compressed. Yes, storage is cheap. Bandwidth is not. Also, you really don't want a human that intercepts your data to be able to read it. Additionally, your data structue only makes sense in the context of your domain, which usually has been modeled in your program(s) that work in that domain, and thus it will be better if you deserialize it within tools that understand that domain. If you feel the need for a general purpose deserialization protocol, there are several available - Avro/Protobuf, etc. Binary encoded data can often be decoded without consuming the entire document. Sax-paparser-like reading requires at least reading an open and a close before the data is useful. String serialization is a wasteful endeavor. It makes life easy for devs because it takes one less step to read the data in a text editor or log message, but quite often requires hacks to model things like recursive or self-referential data structures, and wastes space by repeating property names constantly for every item within the serialized structure. It's predicated on four of the fallacies of distributed computing, namely - bandwidth is infinite, the network is secure, transport cost is zero, and latency is zero. It is a solution looking for a problem, and because we are lazy, we don't build tools that would make binary serialized formats just as easy to use as json/yaml/xml.