• From: rjelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:34:22 +1100

 On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:07:55 -0500, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...> 
 wrote:
 
> I think the danger that we face at this juncture is throwing out the
> good with the bad. XML has gained adoption not because of the XML
> standards community. It gained adoption because it filled a very
> definite niche - document-centric structures - quite well, and over
> time more and more "data" is being represented this way because data
> is becoming more robust and document-like. That's not going to go 
> away...


 There are some programming patterns or architectures that are 
 associated with
 publishing. pipeline processing, various kinds of publish/subscribe, 
 outbound
 validation, hierarchical data, linking as a separate layer, the
 element/attribute/data/comment/PI/schema/style distinctions, and so on.

 The WWW has been an experiment, in some ways, of applying these 
 characteristic
 publishing patterns to other problems, and XML fitted in there.

 I don't know that JSON encourages or fits in with those patterns or 
 architectures
 (not a criticism). Instead, it does the reverse: it allows experiments 
 in
 applying highly traditional programming patterns (C-ish structs, 
 sub-LISP-ish eval)
 to publishingy problems.  What is good for the goose is good for the 
 gander.


 There is a class of technology, where one motivated and highly 
 productive programmer
 can hack together a basic implementation of the technology in a week 
 (or a week.)
 JSON and raw XML both fit into this category. Technologies like this 
 are friendly
 for non-corporate FOSS projects, and standards based on technologies 
 larger than this
 are pretty much out of bounds for non-corporate FOSS projects.

 The difference between JSON and raw XML compared to the namespaced/XML 
 Schemad stacks is
 not just the technology and the patterns, but that the large specs are 
 largely driven by
 corporations or corporate sectors (e.g. database vendors).

 Cheers
 Rick Jelliffe