3 ms·

You're making an interesting distinction between "JSON" and "languages based on JSON" there, which I don't. JSON and XML in isolation are just a bunch of punctu

You're making an interesting distinction between "JSON" and "languages based on JSON" there, which I don't. JSON and XML in isolation are just a bunch of punctuation and not useful. They're only useful when we know the structure of the data within them. XML already had schemas, and we were able to easily (YMMV!) validate the correctness of a document. JSON was simpler because we would just say to each other "I'll send you a {"foo":{"bar":1234,"ok":true}}", "Cool thx" - and there wasn't a way to formalise that even if we wanted to. That doesn't scale well though. We needed a (machine-readable) way to define what the data should actually look like, thus OpenAPI etc.

rewmie 3y ago
> You're making an interesting distinction between "JSON" and "languages based on JSON" there, which I don't. That's basically the root cause of your misconceptions. A document format encoded in JSON is a separate format, which happens to be a subset of JSON. A byte stream can be a valid JSON document but it's broken with regards to the document format you specified. Tools like JSONPath bridge the gap between your custom document format and JSON. This is not a JSON shortcoming or design flaw. > They're only useful when we know the structure of the data within them. They are only useful to you because you're complaining that you still need to parse your custom format. This is not a problem with JSON or any other document format. This is only a misconception you have with regards to what you're doing.