Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting article, but I just don't care about these supposed advantages. Sure, there's XPath, but there's also JSON Path. As for using XML to transform XML…why not just use Lisp to transform S-expressions?

JSON is hardly great: rather, it's the second-worst of the popular data interchange formats today. XML is the worst.

ASN.1 isn't really popular, which is good; I'd hate to have to decide between ASN.1 and XML.

View on HN

What about Protobuf? It seems to me it is lightweight than xml and asn.1, though heavyweight than json, but it suits most of the case.

If JSON has JSONPath and JSONSchema. It looks like it is another XML, then.

> What about Protobuf?

For what they are, I quite like protobufs. I tend to prefer something with a human-readable version, but protobufs do get the job done.

Human-readability is why canonical S-expressions (e.g. (3:foo3:bar), which can be displayed as (foo bar), ("foo" #626172#), (|Zm9v|3:bar) or any permutation thereof) are still the best thing around.

JsonPath is no standard and last time I checked there only was a quick-and-dirty JavaScript implementation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com