Re: [json] Re: JSoda
- On Nov 14, 2007 12:41 PM, Kyle Alan Hale <kylealanhale@...> wrote:
> > to wrap DOM within JSON?
> > Why not deal with xml via DOM as is? And when transferring, let
> > efficient xml generators/parsers take care of marshalling aspects?
> > I do understand the interoperability aspects sometimes require one to
> > use mappings to make things work (albeit inefficiently or awkwardly),
> > but are there some other benefits?
> The DOM element objects themselves aren't being wrapped in JSON. In
> Each object type represents a different thing:
> Object object -> DOM element
> Array object -> DOM document fragment
> String object -> DOM text node
If so, it is also related to methods like Badgerfish, which likewise
allows dealing with xml data by converting it to a more palatable
-+ Tatu +-
> If so, it is also related to methods like Badgerfish, which likewiseYes, much like Badgerfish, just not as comprehensive.. but a bit
> allows dealing with xml data by converting it to a more palatable
> structure. :-)
> -+ Tatu +-
easier to read. Badgerfish is ideal for representing any XML-based
data. JSoda is a simple alternative for storing XHTML (by utilizing
my toJSoda() function), and for quickly building DOM nodes with
toDOM(). The format of JSoda, though, has the same aim as Badgerfish: