To Facebook the answer must be no
scripting.com
scripting.com
Compare that with massive bloated complex XML parsers.
Good on them for using JSON.
I like json a lot - it's a better reincarnation of s-expressions than xml was. The only thing I wish for is that it had a symbol type, so that I could use it as a syntax for programming languages as well as data ;)
Not without a good library for parsing. I'd be impressed by a robust JSON parser written in a few lines of code using just the standard library of any language.
JSON on the other hand, means you have to write your own parser.
And really, why not do as twitter does and make it available in both xml and json formats?
http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/cK3N2DC3Fds
Look at that data and tell me it's beautiful and efficient. It's a crapfest of mammoth proportions.
Unfortunately in the case of youtube, you can ask for it in JSON, but it'll just take the crapfest of XML and convert it to an even bigger pile of rubbish:
http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/cK3N2DC3Fds?alt=js...
Its 2009 man, grow up Dave. XML lost.
http://techcrunch.com/2005/08/21/dave-winers-creates-a-purpl...
The dude invented RSS, but still. Old dog, new trick?
But yeah, json is becoming the syndication format.... Are there standards for json objects yet?
RSS ⊂ XML
Is it just me or does this read like an old out-of-date guy that doesn't like change?
My personal experience is that JSON is very easy and getting OAuth signatures right is like stabbing yourself in the eyes with hot needles.
Dude, you don't remember Passport?
You don't have to though. I've seen a lot of stuff reinvented already, some of it badly. That doesn't stop me from doing the pragmatic thing most of the time though.
I did not realize that in 2010 any mainstream environments did not have a JSON library!
I only ask because I haven't seen one, at least not one that is built in and guaranteed to work.
Because I agree with the title: Facebook promoting unnecessary centralization and large scale spying, the answer must be no. We just need a decentralized replacement, so it can be no.