Comments on: All markup ends up looking like XML

By: Andrzej Taramina

Andrzej Taramina — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:53:42 +0000

Might be worth considering HL Mencken’s thoughts on XML vs JSON vs LISP et all:

“We must accept the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”

XML vs JSON vs LISP, that would be the “religion” part.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:32:17 +0000

>> Manually writing code to traverse them is tedious at best.

hmm. that’s why Dr. Codd devised the relational model. as one other commenter pointed out. folks may continue to stuff data into hierarchy, whether it belongs there or not. eventually, someone will “rediscover” that the magic of the relational algebra. sigh.

By: Bob White

Bob White — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:56:28 +0000

Is there an equivalent to XPath for JSON?

By: Martins Notepad » Blog Archive » Markups raison d’être

Martins Notepad » Blog Archive » Markups raison d’être — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:22:29 +0000

[...] Megginson posted a follow up on his earlier take on JSON, which contains an excellent example/explanation on the advantages of markup compared to hard wired [...]

By: Megginson Technologies: Quoderat » Blog Archive » Thinking about structure

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:47:47 +0000

[...] Crockford left an excellent comment on my recent posting All markup ends up looking like XML, which he later made into its own blog posting, For the trees. I agree with his reworking of the [...]

By: Kristian Kristensen’s Blog »

Kristian Kristensen’s Blog » — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:50:45 +0000

[...] Trees Are Better Than Others”, which implies you gotta read Megginson’s piece “All Markup ends up looking like XML” and Doug Crockfords comment on that last one “For the trees”, gets me thinking. JSON [...]

By: david

david — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:50:31 +0000

Danny: The easiest approach would be simply to encode the triples in JSON. The only trouble is that, at least for RDF 1.0, the triples data model didn’t actually represent all of the information in the XML syntax. Maybe that’s been fixed in a later RDF revision.

By: Danny

Danny — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:31:33 +0000

Very nice comparison.

So here’s another challenge (should you choose to accept it Given “There is no information that can be represented in an XML document that cannot be represented in a JSON document”. Ok, we all know RDF/XML syntax is really ugly. So how would you do RDF in JSON?

(There are a few different systems which use RDF in Lisp, so that’s already covered. There’s also Turtle RDF syntax which is JSON-like in terms of simplicity, and I’m pretty sure Javascript browsers are available, but an eval() would be so much easier…)

By: del.icio.sfera » Megginson Technologies: Quoderat » Blog Archive » All markup ends up looking like XML

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:16:27 +0000

[...] Vai alla pagina segnalata. [...]

By: Aristotle Pagaltzis

Aristotle Pagaltzis — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:24:51 +0000

I used to hate XML. Then I discovered XPath. The funny thing is that XPath conversely is such a nice API for querying XML that now I find myself wishing I had it available for native datastructures. Manually writing code to traverse them is tedious at best. The CPAN has several modules that implement (some subset of) XPath for document types it was not designed for, even one that adds an XPath interface to regular classes so that you can use XPath to walk object hierarchies.