On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Marcos Caceres <w...@marcosc.com> wrote: > Hi Kornel, > Although I have complete empathy about your criticisms regarding JSON, it is > actually quite fit for this purpose. Using HTML in the way you describe is > kinda problematic, in that it could include scripts and other resources: > basically, one would need to build a DOM to parse out the information - and > even if scripts where not run, or resources loaded, one would still then need > to make a special HTML just for this purpose (which would confuse people, as > if you use HTML you expect to be able to have access to features of the > platform). We are going to need a custom processor for the JSON format, but > at least parsing is already done for us (as it was with XML, though sadly it > seems that devs prefer JSON).
FWIW, I tend to think that Kornel is hitting on something here. Whether we want it or not, HTML is the Web's serialization format. It's the one that helps us understand where hyperlinks are and how resources are interconnected. Having a manifest in that format sounds like a Good Thing. My take is that the concerns about building DOM and developers being confused are not super-critical. HTML Templates produce chunks of DOM that don't run scripts or load resources, and it's unlikely that constructing a DOM tree for the manifest will cause any serious performance concerns. Embrace the hyperlinks. They're the Web. :DG<
