--- David Megginson <david.megginson@g...> wrote:

> On 07/06/06, Tahir Hashmi <tnhashmi@g...>
> wrote:
> 
> > > XML is cool. XML is useful. Is XML the permanent
> last word in
> > > markup specification languages? If not, what
> will be next?
> >
> > JSON? http://json.org/
> http://www.json.org/xml.html
> 
> JSON is data structures represented as
> JavaScript/ECMAScript source
> code, so that they can be loaded easily into web
> browsers -- it's
> certainly a strong competitor to XML in the AJAX
> space, but I'm not
> sure we'll see it for general data interchange.  If

Actually, I would disagree... I could see it as one
possible unqituious simple general data interchange
format; esp. when data is bound to objects. Unlike
XML, it's object serialization, or rather just
struct/value serialization (since it's missing object
identity).
More limited in scope, trivially easy to map to/from
objects, bit more compact, faster to parse. Thus, for
data interchange, it seems more optimal than XML,
especially if there was more development in adding
layers on the stack (optional validation definitions;
interface definitions to do what WSDL does with soap
-- nothing within JSON itself either addresses those,
or precludes building such a stack).

Lisp-ish alternatives would be viable choices too.
Although many consider JS to be the important part,
I'm more interested in Object(-binding) part.
This could also reduce pressure to XML, from data
binding side of the development world.

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com