As the joke goes you can write COBOL in any language, and you're the proof. In JSON a more typical format would be: {"id":10,"name":"orange"} Now why you

As the joke goes you can write COBOL in any language, and you're the proof. In JSON a more typical format would be: {"id":10,"name":"orange"} Now why you need an id and a name is another smell, but let's leave that in for the sake of the example. You don't need "node names" in JSON. Typically objects of type "fruit" will be hosted in an array whose type you're always aware of by the contract of your service. Sure you can have polymorphism and hint the type in those exceptional cases: {"type":"fruit","id":10,"name":"orange"} But at least you include that if you need it, it signifies intent, and it's not done just to appease a markup language bent out of shape as a serialization format. By the way, it's curious you chose to use attributes in your XML example. Attributes aren't typically used to serialize object fields. Can you guess why?