4 ms·
Clearly the right solution is to use XML Object Notation, aka XON™! JSON: {"foo": ["bar", 42]} XON: <Object> <Property> <Key>foo</Key> <
by meindnoch 1y ago
Clearly the right solution is to use XML Object Notation, aka XON™!
JSON:
{"foo": ["bar", 42]}
XON:
<Object>
<Property>
<Key>foo</Key>
<Value>
<Array>
<String>bar</String>
<Number>42</Number>
</Arra>
</Value>
</Property>
</Object>
It gives you all the flexibility of JSON with the mature tooling of XML!
Edit: jesus christ, it actually exists https://sevenval.gitbook.io/flat/reference/templating/oxn https://sevenval.gitbook.io/flat/reference/templating/oxn
- indymike 1y agoWe had an IT guy who once bought an XML<->JSON server for $12,000. Very proud of his rack of "data appliances". It made XML like XON out of JSON and JSON that was a soup of elements attributes and ___content___, thus giving you the complexity of XML in JSON. I don't think it got used once by our dev team, and I'm pretty sure it never processed a byte of anything of value.