- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 12:17:40 +0000
- To: ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1683632039913.1308597955.3596657063@cwi.nl>
At the web conference, some people remarked on serialising to JSON. I know that Norm has that as an option, though I haven't yet looked at the format he produces. I think we ought to think about how we believe it should be done, so that we can agree on a standard representation. In my 2017 paper at XML Prague (https://cwi.nl/~steven/Talks/2017/02-11-prague/descriptions.html), I said In the true spirit of "data wants to be format neutral", there is strictly speaking no reason why the parse tree need be in XML, but could be equally well serialised in some other form, such as JSON. Taking an example like this: <expr> <prod> <letter>a</letter> <sum> <digit>3</digit> <letter>b</letter> </sum> </prod> </expr> you might be tempted to try to express this as: {"expr": {"prod": {"letter": "a"; "sum": {"digit":"3"; "letter":"b"} } } } However, JSON object members are more like XML attributes than child elements, because they are not ordered, and (probably) member names may not be duplicated. So you have to use arrays to ensure that element substitutes are ordered, but maybe, since JSON object members are like attributes, attributes could be placed in those. I recognise that there is a typing issue that doesn't arise in XML though, "digit": 3 vs "digit": "3". Steven
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2023 12:17:48 UTC