• From: Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@g...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:37:06 +1100

Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@g...> wrote:
> I think JSON succeeded because it was already existing and got discovered so it was free
> and already had traction and some sanction as part of Javascript.

Let us all not forget that there was a huge shift in data usage,
control and manipulation from the old days of powerful servers and
rubbish browsers, to the new world of all-singing-all-dancing
standardized browsers of speed and power. JSON came with that new
platform when XML wasn't looking.

I've spent my whole life on both sides of this chasm, and, well, I
certainly wish that smarter people could create an XPath-like
implements (right in JS/TS itself, not as yet another bloody
library...) for JSON (all the current libraries are ... umm, not in
the ballpark of what's needed ... I used to be an XPath wiz, and look
at me now *sigh*) both for schemas as well as object/data access.

Because all the smart heavy-hitters on the backend were too busy with
XML (making it more bloated and complex), the lighter punters on the
browser side forgot the typification aspect in JSON. Damn, we were
*this* close!


Cheers,

Alex
-- 
 Information Alchemist, tone modulator, swords master
 thinkplot.org | linkedin.com/in/shelterit | sheltered-objections.blogspot.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: It's too late to improve XML ... lessons learned?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Re: It's too late to improve XML ... lessons learned?
    • From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: It's too late to improve XML ... lessons learned?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: It's too late to improve XML ... lessons learned?
    • From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@g...>