4 ms·
This comes up every so often on Hacker News. The truth is that this isn't a bad joke by IBM. Rather, it was a stopgap measure that was created at a time when Da
by chris_j 12y ago
This comes up every so often on Hacker News. The truth is that this isn't a bad joke by IBM. Rather, it was a stopgap measure that was created at a time when DataPower had native support for XML but not for JSON. A later release of DataPower added native JSON support and removed the need to use JSONx.
Disclosure: I work for IBM and I asked a member of the DataPower team about JSONx the last time that it came up on Hacker News.
- curiously 12y agolol I had a good laugh from reading the tweet and the comments below. "I’m working on a standard to represent MP3s as Word documents if you’re interested."
- masklinn 12y agoI still don't get why they couldn't just reuse existing semantically equivalent XML serialisation formats e.g. as far as I can tell, with the <nil/> extension XML-RPC's serialisation format is a superset of JSON. ASN.1/XER too.
- A_COMPUTER 12y agojsonx comes with a schema, so you can validate it and mix it with other xml if you namespace it. I actually see nothing wrong with jsonx if you're moving json data in and out of a system that natively uses XML. Some people need that stuff. Ten years ago I was working on a system that required me to format data as an APL data file because that's what format the the system expected data in.
- masklinn 12y ago> jsonx comes with a schema, so you can validate it and mix it with other xml if you namespace it And you can't do that with pre-existing XML-based formats… why?