Re: Following up on the good argument for XML thread, JSON is simpler and more space efficient, and seems to be catching on as a data interchange format!

From: Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:35:15 +1100
Message-ID: <4b0f2cd3$0$5423$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>



Ben Finney wrote:
> Casey Hawthorne <caseyhHAMMER_TIME_at_istar.ca> writes:
>> I wonder what the trade-offs are between JSON, XML, and other data
>> interchange formats.

> I've found many programmers using YAML <URL:http://www.yaml.org/>

I've used all three, and still find them all wanting. None supports binary data well. JSON doesn't support back-references (for use in marshalling object graphs with recurrences), and at least the Ruby implementation of YAML has catastrophic bugs in its recurrence handling, where it declares false back-referecces.

YAML is fragile to white-space manipulation, for example when sent as an email attachment.

ASN.1 encodings are robust, but not human-readable.

Clifford Heath. Received on Thu Nov 26 2009 - 19:35:15 CST

Original text of this message