[xquery-talk] Izzit Bcos I is functional?

daniela florescu dflorescu at me.com
Wed Jun 17 09:26:55 PDT 2015

> On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Michael Kay <mike at saxonica.com> wrote:
>> But you can pretty much model the semantic equivalent of JSON data without having to use a Schema, namespace, PI or any  traverse any other of these treacherous terrains. Call it XML the Good Parts (Hmmmm where did I get that idea from). JSON is a very expensive over-reaction. There was no need to invent another format and then make in non-interoperable with XML. 
> Actually, I don’t agree. The cost of doing simple things with XML, like configuration files, is far too high (because of all the other things it is capable of that you don’t need for such cases) and there was a very real need for something simpler for that kind of application. Restricting yourself to a subset of XML doesn’t greatly reduce the cost of writing code to process it, you still have to use the same APIs. Perhaps it could have been achieved with some kind of MicroXML, but as a community, we failed to deliver that.

I agree with Michael here. There was a need, and the world satisfied it.  That’s all.

But in any case, the world could not care less about what WE think at this point. 

Both XML and JSON are here to stay. There are good reasons for each one of them.

So, ideally, in the future:

(1) the two technologies will not be developed completely independently (users will need to deal with both in the
 same time, so that would be a terribly expensive exercise for the industry as a whole) and

(2) JSON people will learn something from what has been developed in the XML world , and they won’t start from scratch , aka
from were XML  started in 1996.

We can dream, can’t we !?? :-)


More information about the talk mailing list