• From: Mitch Amiano <mitch.amiano@a...>
• To: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:33:33 -0500

I think what you're getting is more clever nomenclature, at least, if 
you've been programming with Javascript in the browser and have ever 
pre-loaded Javascript arrays of objects. The transfer method is 
different than loading a <script src="foo.js"> resource, but in the end 
a JSON object, within the browser, is a Javascript object.

For it to do anything useful in the browser, without an applet or 
plug-in that is, you would expect to have other Javascript objects, 
written in the manner (more or less) of a library of prototypes, which 
define behavior and navigational code.

BTW, this seems like déjà vu. Shouldn't the comparison really be between 
JSON v. YAML ;-)


Robert Koberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems a lot it is being said about JSON being a better browser 
> format than XML. Dare Obesanjo makes the best points in favor of JSON 
> - mainly that you can cross domains easily.
>
> But with JSON:
>
> - how do you get the parent object?
> - how can you go directly to an object? (perhaps it is deeply nested 
> in an array, in an object, in an array)
> - how do you transform it for a view? do you write your own 
> transformation language each time?
>
> Does any of the above matter for JSON?
>
> Will an eval'ed JSON object(s) eventually look like a DOM object?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>

• References:
  • json v. xml
    • From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@k...>