6 ms·

Of course. The problem with that approach is that every value becomes a string with no hint about which type it should be converted to. In comparison JSON has -

by tacone 4y ago

Of course. The problem with that approach is that every value becomes a string with no hint about which type it should be converted to. In comparison JSON has - at least - basic types.

__afk__ 4y ago
There are more ways to type (at schema and inline) and more types (see the common XSD types) available OOB in XML than JSON could ever have. Then we can introduce custom types. JSON looks rather impoverished in comparison.
- mattpallissard 4y ago
  Many people "love yaml" and "hate XML" but never dealt with XSD, so they don't even realize what they're talking about syntax instead of functionality. Admittedly, XML isn't the most pleasant syntax to interact with by hand.
  - Devasta 4y ago
    XML syntax is fine so long as you're using a proper IDE. I manage a team of reporting analysts and all of them come from Business Analyst or Accountancy backgrounds; they write and maintain XSLT transforms just fine, once they spend a day or two getting used to IntelliJ IDEA.
  - crispyambulance 4y ago
    XML was a great idea. At some point in the early naughts, however, XML-abuse became rampant-- too many crappy tools, too many half-assed attempts at putting square pegs into round holes. It didn't help that XML got inextricably associated with those horrible over-complicated ws-* standards that ended up sending Russian novel-sized "hello world" information exchanges. The main idea, however, was wonderful. An information exchange format (xml itself), a way to define schemas (xsd), a transformation language (xslt), and stylesheets (xsl?). I kind of miss it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language) the stylesheet part, it included XSLT (transform), XPath, and XSL-FO (XSL Format Objects). XSLT and XPath each went on to great solo careers, XSL-FO kind of fizzled when XML+XSL failed to displace HTML+CSS.
      - spiralx 4y ago
        XSL:FO is great for turning into PDFs though. There's also XQuery for transformations and XSD/RelaxNG for schemas, the whole combination of XML database, WYSIWYG (via XSLT) XML editor and output transformations is very powerful, every journal we published and every site we ran at the British Medical Journal was generated that way.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      I miss XSLT every time I see megabytes of JavaScript converting some JSON into a soup of HTML to display in browsers. A bunch of JavaScript with a bunch of overwrought "components" is serving as a very complicated templating system. A lot of really stupid JavaScript could be done fairly easily with XSLT natively inside a browser engine. An XML document can point to its own XSL(s) so get rendered to the appropriate delivery format or just used directly as data.
      - phoehne 4y ago
        I don't miss it. I had several projects where it seemed like a good idea. I pushed it as a good idea. I really wanted it to work. Some developers (usually the sharper bulbs) got it. A lot of developers really struggled with it. Especially the folks who were 'front end' developers. Even in the 2000's, when everything was trying to go XML, staffing those roles was hard.
        giantrobot 4y ago
        Tooling was XSLT's Achilles heel. Too many tools had no or poor XSLT support. What's confusing to me is a lot of the JavaScript templating today has equally bad tooling yet everyone's in love with it.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Many people "love yaml" and "hate XML" but never dealt with XSD, so they don't even realize what they're talking about syntax instead of functionality. No, I'm pretty sure that if they have only used XML syntax as a data rep and not XML-associated tooling like XSD, they are quite aware that when thet say they hate XML they are talking about syntax. OTOH. I am surprised at the number of people that seem to thing “has a schema language that can be used to specify structure beyond just the basic raw language” distinguishes XML from other data representation languages. Or, more generally, the way that “if you don’t like XML, maybe your problem is you aren’t using enough of it” has become an edgy contrarian position rather than steretypical establishment enterprise consultant thing it was 15 or so years ago.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  JSON-LD can express any RDF datatype, and some XSD types (though not all) have standardized matches in RDF.
electroly 4y ago
The quotes in XML don't make it a string; in the XML schema you can specify the type (and so much more). JSON has a lot of benefits but it absolutely loses this particular comparison. XML schemas will give you all the type information and automatic validation you can swallow. Typing in XML is far richer than in JSON. There's even a date type!
- smitty1e 4y ago
  You mean an .xsd? JSON has .avro, I thought. It's all data. Validation logic is sold separately.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The quotes in XML don’t make it a string; in the XML schema you can specify the type (and so much more). JSON has a lot of benefits but it absolutely loses this particular comparison. JSON, like XML, has several schema languages, which have widely-available libraries for generating host language typings, validation, etc. > Typing in XML is far richer than in JSON. There’s even a date type! JSON Type Definition has timestamp, JSON Schema has date, date-time, time, and duration.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The nice thing about XML being an extensible markup language is that schemas (and metadata like xsi:type) could be easily written inline, making the document fully self-contained.
    - mdaniel 4y ago
      I haven't personally tried such a stunt, but I'd bet it's possible to do that with JSON Schema, too, if the schema resolver tolerates the same self-references style in `$schema`. My experience with the tooling is "lol, yeah right" but shrug seems reasonable { "$schema": "#/$theSchema", "$theSchema": { "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", "$id": "MySchema", "type": "object", "properties": { "productId": { "description": "The unique identifier for a product", "type": "integer" }, "productName": { "description": "Name of the product", "type": "string" }, "price": { "description": "The price of the product", "type": "number", "exclusiveMinimum": 0 } } }, "productId": 1, "productName": "An ice sculpture", "price": 12.50 }
stcroixx 4y ago
You've got to learn XML and XSD first, then you'll see that's not what you're looking at at all.
bfgoodrich 4y ago
[dead]

by tacone 4y ago

Of course. The problem with that approach is that every value becomes a string with no hint about which type it should be converted to. In comparison JSON has - at least - basic types.

__afk__ 4y ago

There are more ways to type (at schema and inline) and more types (see the common XSD types) available OOB in XML than JSON could ever have. Then we can introduce custom types. JSON looks rather impoverished in comparison.

mattpallissard 4y ago
Many people "love yaml" and "hate XML" but never dealt with XSD, so they don't even realize what they're talking about syntax instead of functionality. Admittedly, XML isn't the most pleasant syntax to interact with by hand.
- Devasta 4y ago
  XML syntax is fine so long as you're using a proper IDE. I manage a team of reporting analysts and all of them come from Business Analyst or Accountancy backgrounds; they write and maintain XSLT transforms just fine, once they spend a day or two getting used to IntelliJ IDEA.
- crispyambulance 4y ago
  XML was a great idea. At some point in the early naughts, however, XML-abuse became rampant-- too many crappy tools, too many half-assed attempts at putting square pegs into round holes. It didn't help that XML got inextricably associated with those horrible over-complicated ws-* standards that ended up sending Russian novel-sized "hello world" information exchanges. The main idea, however, was wonderful. An information exchange format (xml itself), a way to define schemas (xsd), a transformation language (xslt), and stylesheets (xsl?). I kind of miss it.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language) the stylesheet part, it included XSLT (transform), XPath, and XSL-FO (XSL Format Objects). XSLT and XPath each went on to great solo careers, XSL-FO kind of fizzled when XML+XSL failed to displace HTML+CSS.
    - spiralx 4y ago
      XSL:FO is great for turning into PDFs though. There's also XQuery for transformations and XSD/RelaxNG for schemas, the whole combination of XML database, WYSIWYG (via XSLT) XML editor and output transformations is very powerful, every journal we published and every site we ran at the British Medical Journal was generated that way.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    I miss XSLT every time I see megabytes of JavaScript converting some JSON into a soup of HTML to display in browsers. A bunch of JavaScript with a bunch of overwrought "components" is serving as a very complicated templating system. A lot of really stupid JavaScript could be done fairly easily with XSLT natively inside a browser engine. An XML document can point to its own XSL(s) so get rendered to the appropriate delivery format or just used directly as data.
    - phoehne 4y ago
      I don't miss it. I had several projects where it seemed like a good idea. I pushed it as a good idea. I really wanted it to work. Some developers (usually the sharper bulbs) got it. A lot of developers really struggled with it. Especially the folks who were 'front end' developers. Even in the 2000's, when everything was trying to go XML, staffing those roles was hard.
      - giantrobot 4y ago
        Tooling was XSLT's Achilles heel. Too many tools had no or poor XSLT support. What's confusing to me is a lot of the JavaScript templating today has equally bad tooling yet everyone's in love with it.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Many people "love yaml" and "hate XML" but never dealt with XSD, so they don't even realize what they're talking about syntax instead of functionality. No, I'm pretty sure that if they have only used XML syntax as a data rep and not XML-associated tooling like XSD, they are quite aware that when thet say they hate XML they are talking about syntax. OTOH. I am surprised at the number of people that seem to thing “has a schema language that can be used to specify structure beyond just the basic raw language” distinguishes XML from other data representation languages. Or, more generally, the way that “if you don’t like XML, maybe your problem is you aren’t using enough of it” has become an edgy contrarian position rather than steretypical establishment enterprise consultant thing it was 15 or so years ago.
zozbot234 4y ago
JSON-LD can express any RDF datatype, and some XSD types (though not all) have standardized matches in RDF.

electroly 4y ago

The quotes in XML don't make it a string; in the XML schema you can specify the type (and so much more). JSON has a lot of benefits but it absolutely loses this particular comparison. XML schemas will give you all the type information and automatic validation you can swallow. Typing in XML is far richer than in JSON. There's even a date type!

smitty1e 4y ago
You mean an .xsd? JSON has .avro, I thought. It's all data. Validation logic is sold separately.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The quotes in XML don’t make it a string; in the XML schema you can specify the type (and so much more). JSON has a lot of benefits but it absolutely loses this particular comparison. JSON, like XML, has several schema languages, which have widely-available libraries for generating host language typings, validation, etc. > Typing in XML is far richer than in JSON. There’s even a date type! JSON Type Definition has timestamp, JSON Schema has date, date-time, time, and duration.
- int_19h 4y ago
  The nice thing about XML being an extensible markup language is that schemas (and metadata like xsi:type) could be easily written inline, making the document fully self-contained.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    I haven't personally tried such a stunt, but I'd bet it's possible to do that with JSON Schema, too, if the schema resolver tolerates the same self-references style in `$schema`. My experience with the tooling is "lol, yeah right" but shrug seems reasonable { "$schema": "#/$theSchema", "$theSchema": { "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", "$id": "MySchema", "type": "object", "properties": { "productId": { "description": "The unique identifier for a product", "type": "integer" }, "productName": { "description": "Name of the product", "type": "string" }, "price": { "description": "The price of the product", "type": "number", "exclusiveMinimum": 0 } } }, "productId": 1, "productName": "An ice sculpture", "price": 12.50 }

stcroixx 4y ago

You've got to learn XML and XSD first, then you'll see that's not what you're looking at at all.

bfgoodrich 4y ago

[dead]