• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'David Lee'" <dlee@c...>, "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@c...>, "'rjelliffe'" <rjelliffe@a...>, "'Xml-Dev''" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:12:04 -0600

It's easier typing for people accustomed to curly bracketed languages.  

Consider it a composition cost.  When writers or programmers write, they
want to think in the concepts they are conceiving, not in the syntax, so the
fewer typing strokes they memorize to create a value pair or any other
expression regularly used is a net savings in human energy.

Some resistance comes from the costs of multiple hand-to-eye habits.  Unless
used a lot by the same person, these penalize the process with a
start-up/relearning time (maybe not long but rusty has a meaning), and
introduce more errors.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@c...] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:04 AM
To: 'Pete Cordell'; 'rjelliffe'; 'Xml-Dev''
Subject: RE:  XML2.0: Truncated End Tags (Was: Fixing what's broke)

If you really value conciseness above all else there is always attributes

JSON:
{ "element" : { "a1" : "value1" , "a2" : "value2" }  }

XML
<element a1="value1" a2="value2"/>


This whole "JSON is more compact" theory is a red herring.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML2.0: Truncated End Tags (Was: Fixing what's broke)
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • RE: XML2.0: Truncated End Tags (Was: Fixing what's broke)
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>