4 ms·

One can make a 1:1 mapping from XML to JSON, but it is going to be verbose. { 'tag': 'Foo', 'children': [ 'Some text',

One can make a 1:1 mapping from XML to JSON, but it is going to be verbose. { 'tag': 'Foo', 'children': [ 'Some text', { 'tag': 'Bar', 'children': ['more text'] } ] } or (hello, LISP) ['Foo', ['Some text', ['Bar', ['more text']]]]

jerf 13y ago
Yes, that's what I mean. Both XML and JSON can ultimately encode everything, but they both do indeed have strengths over the other. The problem with XML isn't that it is a "bad thing" that should never be used, the problem is that it become trendy and people started using it for all sorts of things it shouldn't have been, combined with a healthy dose of it being used by a lot of people who didn't even understand XML. (XML isn't that complicated, but there's more to it that "tags, attributes, and text".) When you're in a domain where XML really should be used, you're going to regret trying to jam JSON into that domain. Also, side observation, that Lisp-like encoding is pretty icky as-is (deciding if something is a tag or text by how deep the array is?), and gets worse if the XML uses attributes.
- tel 13y ago
  I think the various XML Schema-ifications don't help either. XML is fairly poorly defined while JSON is pretty precise. This has more to do with a heavy industry of poorly defined, implied semantics atop XML than anything about the raw format, though.
lisper 13y ago
That's Python. In Lisp it looks like: '(foo "Some text" (bar "more text"))
jwdunne 13y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you could get away with: I don't think your second example is much at all like Lisp and I think to actually achieve something lispy, JSON would need some kind of symbol type, so you can do: ['Foo, ['Some Text', ['Bar, 'more text']]] Though, mix in attributes, and it's just a nightmare. After all, it's not like: '(Foo "Some text" (Bar "more text")) Or with an admittedly not-very-well-thought-out attribute: '(Foo "Some text" (Bar ([] (name "Baz")) "more text")) For: <Foo>Some text <Bar name="Baz">more text</Bar></Foo> Though there may be a better way of representing attributes....

jerf 13y ago

Yes, that's what I mean. Both XML and JSON can ultimately encode everything, but they both do indeed have strengths over the other. The problem with XML isn't that it is a "bad thing" that should never be used, the problem is that it become trendy and people started using it for all sorts of things it shouldn't have been, combined with a healthy dose of it being used by a lot of people who didn't even understand XML. (XML isn't that complicated, but there's more to it that "tags, attributes, and text".) When you're in a domain where XML really should be used, you're going to regret trying to jam JSON into that domain. Also, side observation, that Lisp-like encoding is pretty icky as-is (deciding if something is a tag or text by how deep the array is?), and gets worse if the XML uses attributes.

tel 13y ago
I think the various XML Schema-ifications don't help either. XML is fairly poorly defined while JSON is pretty precise. This has more to do with a heavy industry of poorly defined, implied semantics atop XML than anything about the raw format, though.

lisper 13y ago

That's Python. In Lisp it looks like: '(foo "Some text" (bar "more text"))

jwdunne 13y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you could get away with: I don't think your second example is much at all like Lisp and I think to actually achieve something lispy, JSON would need some kind of symbol type, so you can do: ['Foo, ['Some Text', ['Bar, 'more text']]] Though, mix in attributes, and it's just a nightmare. After all, it's not like: '(Foo "Some text" (Bar "more text")) Or with an admittedly not-very-well-thought-out attribute: '(Foo "Some text" (Bar ([] (name "Baz")) "more text")) For: <Foo>Some text <Bar name="Baz">more text</Bar></Foo> Though there may be a better way of representing attributes....