On 10 Dec 2013, at 07:52, James Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Most users of XML deal with higher-level semantic abstractions rather than > directly with the XML Infoset, but it has proven very useful to be able to > specify these higher-level semantic abstractions in terms of the XML Infoset > rather than having to specify them directly in terms of the XML syntax.
The XML infoset is very much tied to the needs (and idiosyncrasies) of the serialization that XML uses. There are many ways this infoset is mapped into the data model used by an XML-based application. The main innovation of JSON was to actually supply such a data model as part of the format. I would argue that his property was what made JSON “win” over XML. Turning back the clock and trying to use JSON as a conveyer of an infoset instead of using it with its data model could be considered unproductive. On the other hand, some people want to do alternative data models with the JSON syntax, so maybe standardization has to cater for that. One of the reasons many people react so violently to such a proposal is that it is bound to cause confusion that these alternative data models are now also “JSON data models”, reducing the value of the JSON data model as the hingepin of interoperability. I don’t know how to counteract that confusion while also enabling the use of alternative data models by the definition of the infoset. But maybe we can find a way. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
