[GeoJSON] <religious-war>size matters</religious-war>
adoyle at eogeo.org
Thu Mar 15 08:47:51 PDT 2007
You point out an interesting perspective, and it's good to know about
However, perhaps we should assume that the GeoJSON community (of 3-4
people but growing astronomically as we speak) is already convinced
that a JSON implementation of something Geo is a worthwhile
experiment. So I'm not sure this qualifies as a religious war.
Some of us might dislike XML as a transport for reasons of our own...
either entirely (religiously) or under specific circumstances
(pragmatically) or both.
On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:28, Geoff Hendrey wrote:
> Here is some interesting background/debunking on the myth of JSON
> compactness vs. XML verbosity.
> This is an excerpt from an email I sent to a colleague early last
> I went to the json "see for yourself" page: http://www.json.org/
> example.html to compare the Json equivalent of XML.
> I copied each of the examples into notepad and wrote down the size-
> on disk:
> json size (bytes) XML size (bytes) (json size)/
> (XML size)
> 604 630 95%
> 252 221 114%
> 630 656 96%
> 3554 10708 33%
> 898 1150 78%
> AVG (json size)/(XML size)
> Based on an average size compaction to 83.2% of the XML size. Also,
> if you look at the 4th example they give (line 4 of the table
> above), they did a Json version of web.xml. Now web.xml is a
> notoriously bad XML design. It basically doesn't use ANY
> attributes, so you get pretty nasty tag bloat. So if we drop the
> 4th comparison, as being kinda silly, we get an average compaction
> to 95.4% of the original size. Is saving 4.5% really a big advantage?
> I also saw several statements on the json web page that I would put
> in the "wacky" bin. This may just be personal preference, but I
> found the XML documents much easier to read than their json
> equivalents. The Json looks, to me, like "code", kinda like a
> snippet of PERL or something.
> Anyway, it seems clear that being able to easily marshal an object
> representation of your data makes it much easier to develop
> software in any programming language. But it seems to me that json
> is munging this idea up with the wire format, which to me are
> orthogonal concerns.
> Geoff Hendrey
> Software Architect
> Four North Second Street, Suite 950
> San Jose, CA 95113
> office 408.625.3522
> geojson mailing list
> geojson at lists.geojson.org
adoyle at eogeo.org
More information about the GeoJSON