Re: XML and JSON

Maurice O'Prey wrote:

XML buys you a step in the right direction, all data, and the relationships
between data, must be described to be understood by the wider audience. If
JSON was universally adopted to achieve this then great, I thought that was
the original intent of XML. But as far as I can see people are using JSON
for their own ends (which isn't inherently wrong I must say).

One cannot complain about the absence of standards in others if they ignore
them themselves and one should strive to adopt standards (for all).

No argument intended, I didn't say XML was better and JSON has its uses.

XML itself doesn't buy you this, although the schema does indeed provide some standardization. However, the idea of standardization of information is way larger than XML vs. JSON. For example, take an XML document like this:

<person>
<firstname>Joe</firstname>
<lastname>Pluta</lastname>
</person>

Depending on your viewpoint, even this simple document has major deficiencies, even if has a schema. For example, in French, the tag should be prenom, not firstname. So now you need a meta-schema that allows flexible nomenclature. But it doesn't end there: some cultures don't have the same concept of first and last name. So now you need to have flexible structures.

And this is just for names! Imagine what happens with business terminology. The concept of meta-information can get so involved that you spend most of your time just figuring out the next structural nuance. And while that's probably important if you need informational transparency for global communication, I'm usually okay with simplicity (and efficiency) over flexibility, within reason.

Joe