[josteink]

> or are constantly tripping you up with namespaces

You mean requires that you understand the XML format you are working with? Oh noes!

Namespaces exist, just about everywhere in the world of programming, and they do so for a reason.

<bar /> is not the same as <foo:bar /> just like http://bar.com is not the same as http://bar.foo.com.

If that's putting the bar high, I really think I may be suffering a huge disconnect from the rest of my peers in terms of expected capabilities.

Just because JSON doesn't have namespacing-capabilities at all, doesn't make it a worthless feature. It's actually what gives you the eXtensibility in XML. As a developer I expect you to understand that.

(And I wonder how long time it will take before the JS-world re-implements this XML-wheel, while again doing so with a worse implementation)

[acdha]

The reason why many developers hate XML namespaces isn't the concept but the implementations which force you to repeat yourself everywhere. I think a significant amount of the grumbling would go away if XPath parsers were smart enough to assume that //tag was the same as //default-and-only-namespace:tag, or at least allowed you to use //name:tag instead of //{URI}tag because then you could write against the document as it exists rather than mentally having to translate names everywhere.

Yes, you can write code to add default namespaces when the document author didn't include them and pass in namespace maps everywhere but that's a lot of tedious boilerplate which requires regular updating as URLs change. Over time, people sour on that.

It really makes me wonder what it'd be like now if anyone had made an effort to invest in making the common XML tools more usable and other maintenance so e.g. you could actually rely on using XPath 2+.

[jancsika]

> (And I wonder how long time it will take before the JS-world re-implements this XML-wheel, while again doing so with a worse implementation)

I'm going to guess never. I'm also going to guess that there isn't a single flamewar in the entire history of JSON where someone was trying to figure out how to implement anything close to XML namespaces in JSON. And by "close", I mean something that would require changes to JSON parsers and/or downstream APIs to accommodate potentially bipartite keys.

[josteink]

You never know. This is what they said about schemas too not many years back.

[jancsika]

Have there been any discussions whatsoever about adding some sort of namespacing mechanism to JSON?

[rspeer]

Well, there's JSON-LD (JSON Linked Data) already.

It's for making interoperable APIs, so there is a good motivation for namespaces. But the namespaces are much less intrusive than XML namespaces. Ordinary API consumers don't even have to see them.

One of the key design goals of JSON-LD was that -- unlike its dismal ancestor, RDF/XML -- it should produce APIs that people actually want to use.

[jancsika]

Thanks, I haven't explored JSON-LD before.

But that's not a case of adding namespaces to JSON, is it?

What I mean is if one were to take the skeptical position that JSON is going to end up "re-inventing the XML wheel", that would mean JSON advocates would need to push namespaces into the JSON spec as a core feature of the format. I've never read a discussion of such an idea, but I'd like to if they exist.

edit: clarification

[rspeer]

Well, yeah, perhaps the craziest thing about XML is that it has namespaces built into its syntax with no realistic model of how or why you would be mashing up different sources of XML tags.

Namespaces are about the semantics of what strings refer to. They belong in a layer with semantics, like JSON-LD, not in the definition of the data transfer format.

I am convinced that nobody would try to add namespaces to JSON itself. Just about everyone can tell how bad an idea that would be.