4 ms·
I don't view that as a loss. JSON by itself is just a string with no context information so either the context is in the programmer's head, in a human-readable
by alphalima 4y ago
I don't view that as a loss. JSON by itself is just a string with no context information so either the context is in the programmer's head, in a human-readable document, or in a schema file.
Adding a schema to it seems natural to me (as someone who prefers strong-typing), and the JSONSchema implementation seems pretty lightweight and sensible.
I'd go even further down the mining XML's legacy route and add better XPATH2.0 + XQuery - style support. XQuery was a great tool, so expressive. Though it did spawn XQueryX [1] which I'm still unsure whether it was a joke or not.
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/xquery/0596006349/ch22s02.html https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/xquery/0596006349/ch22s...
- michelpp 4y agoPostgres does support jsonpath syntax which covers some of those cases: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-json.html#DATATYPE-JSONPATH https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-json.html#D...
- legalcorrection 4y agoIt’s funny to think about where we’d be if someone had come up with a better xml syntax before json took off.