Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of steve.loughran@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAECjgKA3spqLtyLCeHrwD+2DUyQLecdusy+viWiueBu292iwtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAECjgKA3spqLtyLCeHrwD+2DUyQLecdusy+viWiueBu292iwtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:29:35 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADadbPFDPXCfYDnMhEQ7qd06g+Q=hbR1n5xzBL3gsTcax_PgnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Parser
From: Steve Loughran <steve.loughran@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe3390c7f43c04c15d70b1

--e0cb4efe3390c7f43c04c15d70b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 31 May 2012 07:18, Seungyoung Kim <wolkykim@gmail.com> wrote:

>  XML and JSON format is another one which are used wided, but little bit
> too complecated and heavy from application's stand point of view.
>

I'd agree with this critique of XML, but not JSON. Easy to yacc-up a
parser, a fair number of implementations out there, and lots of web browser
support. A reasonably straightforward mapping from the JSON to a tree of
(key, entry) pairs, unlike say the XML dom with its namespaces,
intermingled text elements with other things, the duopoly of attributes and
elements.

--e0cb4efe3390c7f43c04c15d70b1--