Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > JSON was invented, not as a "Standard" but as a practical solution to one > problem, IMHO, parsing XML in the browser wasn't universally supported. > But calling "eval()" was. So why not just send JavaScript (in sheep's > clothing as "JSON") directly ? It is not sheep's clothing. It was in JS before it was named JSON. Another large problem for XML in the browser is the ability to GET XML from another domain. For XML you need to proxy it through your server or proxy it through some other service to turn it into JSON. For JSON you can use XMLHTTP (and use eval where I can see the sheep's clothing part) or call it with a script element along with a callback (JSONP - nekid wolf). Why XML has this security restriction placed on it and JSON/JS does not is kind of strange, but... I agree with David. XML is fine. It is just not the right choice for the browser. Namespaces are fine (and extremely useful!) for dev users and end users (who usually don't see it). It was my understanding that namespaces are/were hard for the parser developers. The discussions on this list commingle the concerns of the parser dev, the xml dev and the end user so that the real concerns of the parser dev become adopted as proof for the others. -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
