5 ms·

> When serialising data with ᴊꜱᴏɴ one has to use special field names such as $id; hoping the programming language does not. Unless a serialization/deserializat

> When serialising data with ᴊꜱᴏɴ one has to use special field names such as $id; hoping the programming language does not. Unless a serialization/deserialization tool supports property name overriding which is trivial. > It DOES have native graph support that xᴍʟ and ᴊꜱᴏɴ do not. Again, how is this different from `xml:id` that is referenced from other XML document nodes and what makes it "native graph support"? > Both Xᴇɴᴏɴ libraries can provide support for encoding say ɢᴜɪᴅs. > Better than ᴊꜱᴏɴ which does not do timestamps. Better? There is just no need. For what? These two can be controlled by optional schemas that may be extensible like types to validate in XML Schema or Relax NG. Schemas do not dictate format and you don't need your format to be a schema. I still can't get what makes timestamps (and GUIDs) so special so that they have special sections in your document. I tend I think JSON also has a design flaw providing first-class support for booleans and numbers in terms of literals it took from JavaScript because the latter needs more complex syntax as a programming language. Ridiculously, XML seems to be perfect in this case unifying scalar values: whatever scalar it encodes, text representation can encode it in any efficient format regardless it is a boolean, number (integer, "real", complex, whatever special), a "human-text" string, timestamp or whatever else; HTML attribute values unlike XML don't even need to be quoted in some trivial cases and even may be omitted for boolean attributes. The application simply parses/decodes its data and manages how the data is deserialized. That's all it needs. I would probably be happy if, say, there would be a format as simple/minimalistic as possible not even requiring delimiters like or quoted strings unless they are ambiguous. Say, `[foo 'bar baz' foo\ bar Zm9vYmFyCg== 2.415e10 ∞ +Inf -∞ -Infinity \[qux\] +1\ 123\ 456789 978012345678 {k1 v1 k2 v2} aa512e8ecf97445eac10cb5a5ea3ef63 c8a0ebbd 2026-09-24T16:45:22.5383742 P3Y6M4DT12H30M5S]` or similar, maybe with nodes metadata and comments support. The above dumb format covers arrays/lists/sets, strings `foo`, space-containing `bar baz`, `foo bar` strings in human and Base64 encoding, the `2.415e10` number from your document and both four infinity notations, a single string `[qux]` and not a nested array with a single element, a phone number (with space delimited country code, region code and local number), an ISBN, a simple map/object made of two pairs, a GUID, a CRC32 checksum, an ISO-8601 zoned date/time, and an ISO-8601 duration. What more scalar types it can be extended with? Since there is no type for scalars in this "format" does not dictate types or preferred scalar formats letting the application make decision how to interpret these on its own. > Commas makes numbers faster to interpret. Something `ls` is missing. As I stated on another branch English is the global lingua franca so commas every three digits is the standard. For whom? Humans? Why would data encoding obey region number|date/time notation standards at all? English, but US, UK, Canada, or any other English-speaking country? You've been told that in that thread too, especially if spaces or underscores are even more readable for monospace fonts. You don't need it. > See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42049033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42049033 Funny enough -- your format saves on key/value pairs syntax appealing to 4 vs 6 overhead (okay, cool), but your array elements delimited with `<&>`, and amazingly bad at keyboard typing ergonomics, loses to simple and regular JSON `,` syntax (3 vs 1 overhead). Isn't it blind or crazy?

GeneThomas 2y ago
> Again, how is this different from `xml:id` It is a tidier solution. > I still can't get what makes timestamps (and GUIDs) so special so that they have special sections in your document. They are common in data. > [...] boolean attributes Separate attributes and sub elements is a mistake. One should be able to guess an ᴀᴘɪ. > What more scalar types it can be extended with? > letting the application make decision how to interpret these on its own. That is laborours! A Xᴇɴᴏɴ library provides AsGuid, AsDateTime etc.. and serialization directly to/from those types. >For whom? Humans? Yes. Human have to read markup. > Why would data encoding obey region number|date/time notation standards at all? English, but US, UK, Canada, or any other English-speaking country? I repeat! READABILITY. > Isn't it blind or crazy? No, quite the opposite.
- tripple6 2y ago
  > It is a tidier solution. Based on special syntax. You're about to introduce node attributes. > They are common in data. I use tables everyday. May I have "first-class graph support" but for tabular data that is very common as well? I expected three or four times you eventually explain what makes the graph support and how it differs from declaring ids and refs in other formats you think are worse than yours. No answer. > Separate attributes and sub elements is a mistake. One should be able to guess an ᴀᴘɪ. For the first, I kind of agree that attributes and subnodes should be unified in favor of subnodes (which was sacrificed for markups like HTML for sane brevity sake). However attributes, your ids are, may be metadata for nodes of any kind. For the second, API for what? Document generating/parsing API? Validation API? Serialization/deserialization API? Enveloped application API? I guess, the latter for whatever reason dictated in your "standard" . In any case documentation, schemas, data validators and autocompletes are my best friends, no need to "guess". > That is laborours! A Xᴇɴᴏɴ library provides AsGuid, AsDateTime etc.. and serialization directly to/from those types. What you're mentioning is called serialization and deserialization, and these two be easily implemented once for "basic" types and extended at the application level for any kind of data, because an application decides what to do with data on its own, not the format the data is enveloped in. Serialization and deserialization don't exist from the format perspective which only defines the syntax way data is marked up in a document. So why would it care the formatting at all? > Yes. Human have to read markup. Format should not care too much. > I repeat! READABILITY. No yelling please. Regional formats are defined by countries, not languages you said elsewhere, just by definition, even if English is the lingua franca. Separate digits with underscores or spaces. I'm very happy your "standard" neither recommend color highlighting for, say, numbers, nor even worse has special syntax for readability highlighting. Highlighting increases readability greatly as well, you know. > No, quite the opposite. 6:4 but 1:3 is a great syntax win. Okay. No any solid counter arguments from your side being blind for obvious design flaws of your so-called format "standard" only tells how you mixed up all concepts in a mess of crazy syntax markup, and scalar object formatting for scalars that only must be handled by applications while serialization and deserialization regardless the markup format "standard" recommends. Good luck with your "standard" rightly criticized and rejected by others, but better just bury it not spending your life for nothing. Sincerely.

GeneThomas 2y ago

> Again, how is this different from `xml:id` It is a tidier solution. > I still can't get what makes timestamps (and GUIDs) so special so that they have special sections in your document. They are common in data. > [...] boolean attributes Separate attributes and sub elements is a mistake. One should be able to guess an ᴀᴘɪ. > What more scalar types it can be extended with? > letting the application make decision how to interpret these on its own. That is laborours! A Xᴇɴᴏɴ library provides AsGuid, AsDateTime etc.. and serialization directly to/from those types. >For whom? Humans? Yes. Human have to read markup. > Why would data encoding obey region number|date/time notation standards at all? English, but US, UK, Canada, or any other English-speaking country? I repeat! READABILITY. > Isn't it blind or crazy? No, quite the opposite.

tripple6 2y ago
> It is a tidier solution. Based on special syntax. You're about to introduce node attributes. > They are common in data. I use tables everyday. May I have "first-class graph support" but for tabular data that is very common as well? I expected three or four times you eventually explain what makes the graph support and how it differs from declaring ids and refs in other formats you think are worse than yours. No answer. > Separate attributes and sub elements is a mistake. One should be able to guess an ᴀᴘɪ. For the first, I kind of agree that attributes and subnodes should be unified in favor of subnodes (which was sacrificed for markups like HTML for sane brevity sake). However attributes, your ids are, may be metadata for nodes of any kind. For the second, API for what? Document generating/parsing API? Validation API? Serialization/deserialization API? Enveloped application API? I guess, the latter for whatever reason dictated in your "standard" . In any case documentation, schemas, data validators and autocompletes are my best friends, no need to "guess". > That is laborours! A Xᴇɴᴏɴ library provides AsGuid, AsDateTime etc.. and serialization directly to/from those types. What you're mentioning is called serialization and deserialization, and these two be easily implemented once for "basic" types and extended at the application level for any kind of data, because an application decides what to do with data on its own, not the format the data is enveloped in. Serialization and deserialization don't exist from the format perspective which only defines the syntax way data is marked up in a document. So why would it care the formatting at all? > Yes. Human have to read markup. Format should not care too much. > I repeat! READABILITY. No yelling please. Regional formats are defined by countries, not languages you said elsewhere, just by definition, even if English is the lingua franca. Separate digits with underscores or spaces. I'm very happy your "standard" neither recommend color highlighting for, say, numbers, nor even worse has special syntax for readability highlighting. Highlighting increases readability greatly as well, you know. > No, quite the opposite. 6:4 but 1:3 is a great syntax win. Okay. No any solid counter arguments from your side being blind for obvious design flaws of your so-called format "standard" only tells how you mixed up all concepts in a mess of crazy syntax markup, and scalar object formatting for scalars that only must be handled by applications while serialization and deserialization regardless the markup format "standard" recommends. Good luck with your "standard" rightly criticized and rejected by others, but better just bury it not spending your life for nothing. Sincerely.