Re: XML and JSON

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maurice O'Prey wrote:
> XML buys you a step in the right direction, all data, and the relationships
> between data, must be described to be understood by the wider audience. If
> JSON was universally adopted to achieve this then great, I thought that was
> the original intent of XML. But as far as I can see people are using JSON
> for their own ends (which isn't inherently wrong I must say).
>
> One cannot complain about the absence of standards in others if they ignore
> them themselves and one should strive to adopt standards (for all).
>
> No argument intended, I didn't say XML was better and JSON has its uses.
>   

XML itself doesn't buy you this, although the schema does indeed provide 
some standardization.  However, the idea of standardization of 
information is way larger than XML vs. JSON.  For example, take an XML 
document like this:

<person>
   <firstname>Joe</firstname>
   <lastname>Pluta</lastname>
</person>

Depending on your viewpoint, even this simple document has major 
deficiencies, even if has a schema.  For example, in French, the tag 
should be prenom, not firstname.  So now you need a meta-schema that 
allows flexible nomenclature.  But it doesn't end there: some cultures 
don't have the same concept of first and last name.  So now you need to 
have flexible structures.

And this is just for names!  Imagine what happens with business 
terminology.  The concept of meta-information can get so involved that 
you spend most of your time just figuring out the next structural 
nuance.  And while that's probably important if you need informational 
transparency for global communication, I'm usually okay with simplicity 
(and efficiency) over flexibility, within reason.

Joe