• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:49:59 -0000

I think the most important line on the www.json.org page is:

"Excepting a few encoding details, that completely describes the language."

If someone needs a data representation language and they have the choice of 
XML or JSON, in the time it takes to be able to say "Right I understand 
that" with JSON, they probably haven't even found the right web page for XML 
and most certainly have not got past the bit about parameter entity 
expansion.

Someone mentioned script-kiddies on the list.  Actually I think the world is 
turning into code-kiddies.  The new model seems to be, stumble into problem, 
do Google search, download sample code, move onto next problem.  People 
don't take 6 months to learn a technology before using it.

So why don't I just use JSON?  Because there's a lot of data out there that 
can't easily be mapped to JSON.  Paraphrasing Metcalfe's law, the richness 
of your data is proportional to the square of the number of data sources you 
have.  I don't want a JSON island and an XML island.

What I want is a format that can losslessly represent all XML documents, 
including namespaces, and mixed data, but has the simplicity of JSON.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Simplicity Rocks
    • From: "Andrew S. Townley" <ast@a...>
  • Re: Simplicity Rocks
    • From: Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@g...>