On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Colin Adams
<colinpauladams(_at_)googlemail(_dot_)com> wrote:
2008/5/19 James Fuller <james(_dot_)fuller(_dot_)2007(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
using JSON's serialization format for javascript objects, as a generic
approach to marshalling data over the wire is probably ok ... though
I see the decision to use JSON as an exercise in late optimization. I
have yet to employ this optimization in any production.
I know that javascript is everywhere and is part of the web and people
use it and thusly want to use things like JSON ... but comparing (not
saying this thread is doing this) it to XML is 'apples' and
'airplanes' ... also there is no reason why the OP can't write their
own extension function.
I am not against JSON ... I like little domain text based languages
(cue perl, sed, awk, ack) but we live in a world where the web is
mostly markup; XML is effectively HTML's brother and they share an
enormous toolbase ('view source' anyone) and heritage which must be
compelling at many levels.
What about YAML?
YAML 1.2 is a pure superset of JSON, I believe. And there is some work
going on to define an XML <-> YAML mapping (but it may be a subset of
each).
If this mapping were to be settled, then you could use that for the
transformation.
YAML is fine as well and has great perl support
On the whole, i don't really see any advantage in these things over XML.
I agree; I think most people when they use 'other' things eventually
will come up against some shortcoming. XML has shortcomings, but it
represents to me a very good 'least' amount of features and no
more/less ... though admittedly I am a XML namespace fanboy, I can
imagine there are some people who are not.
cheers, Jim Fuller
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--