However, if you think about it, it's really a better choice than XML for
1) It's less "wordy" than XML. This translates to fewer bytes needing
to be sent over the wire, and a smaller memory footprint to work with.
2) It's structure is simpler than XML -- and that makes it easier to
write/support/maintain JSON parsers, and they tend to run faster, and
have fewer bugs.
3) JSON only supports one text encoding (UTF-8). So unlike XML, there's
no need to try to support every possible encoding under the sun. This
also makes it easier to write/support/maintain JSON parsers vs. XML.
I personally think JSON works better in most applications that folks are
using XML for. There are exceptions... JSON doesn't have an
equivalent of XSD or XSL, so if need that sort of functionality, XML is
still the best choice. But, in most business applications where things
are a simple data interchange, I like JSON.
On 9/20/2013 1:11 PM, Pete Helgren wrote:
I find that an interesting request because unlike XML, JSON was designed
JSON represents an object in text and when rendered produces an object
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact