True. I wasn't suggesting doing it one way or the other.. I'd do it on the server side if possible and was expecting they/he has control over the xml to some extend (thinking one of the backend programmers created the xml). But it should be valid xml to begin with. I think my last experience with xml was a bad one (had to do with a soap webservice/wsdl), so I'm biased when I say I prefer json ;)
On Nov 26, 11:19 pm, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you don't have control over the XML, obviously converting it to > > JSON is not a valid alternative. > > [Read: if you don't even have enough control over the XML generating > routine to get a simple namespace in there for a mission-critical API, > then it'd be strange if you could add all-new code on the server to > retrieve and convert XML into JSON -- though admittedly there may be > some good or emergency-hack cases where you could do the latter but > not the former. Converting on the client side, IMO, is performance > suicide and I think way beneath the YQL/JSONP alternative.]
