"Bob La Quey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But the XML simplification war was lost. As far as I am concerend for > places where it fits JSON is a _lot_ better than XML.
But what does JSON have to say about Unicode or encodings, or parsed entity/macro-like replacement support? Those are two features I appreciate about XML; other people would surely have different favorites. There's too much in XML for me, but the things I wouldn't mind being taken away may be what others consider essential. We could say the same thing about, say, C++. Much like Lisp, XML has at least two levels to ponder: its data model and its surface syntax. Ideas like Fast Infoset (a Huffman coding-like compression scheme) build on the first level to attack the second by taking the data model (which I like) and finding a different surface syntax (the default of which I don't like). All of these proposed replacement languages should be evaluated at the data model level to truly understand what they aim to express. XML lacked such a specified formal data model at first, but making it manifest helps build related standards on top of it. -- Steven E. Harris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
