[from discussion Ben Black]
XML drags along an awful lot of baggage, which has resulted in many folks using lighter-weight formats like JSON. ATOM, in turns, lards still more baggage into the mix, again ... JSON has similarly moved well beyond its origins as something used by Javascript (see CouchDB for a great example). Finally, it is a simple, text-based system, far simpler than XML, and I have recent, painful experience in working in JSON and XML simultaneously for systems management.
A man after my own heart ;-) Seriously, I think the point here is that the Atom XML vs. simple JSON/TXT discussion is a typical unresolvable programmers' religious war. To caricature: - One camp will always believe that Atom XML is more flexible, extensible and Enterprise-ready, whilst being "simple enough". - The other camp will always believe that very basic JSON/TXT formats are much simpler, lower baggage and "flexible/extensible enough". OCCI will be used by programmers from both camps, so we need to meet both needs. Luckily on this mailing list we have Sam as a strong advocate of the first camp, and ElasticHosts as a strong advocate of the second ;-) As I have said before, my aim is that the XML, JSON and TXT formats should all share the same nouns, verbs and attributes, and should also be automatically translatable into each other, but beyond that each should be well designed in their own right. ElasticHosts will continue to fight strongly for the second camp in the JSON and TXT format, whilst deferring on most issues of taste in the XML format. I'd like to see members of the first camp fighting strongly in the XML format, but deferring on most issues of taste in the JSON and TXT formats. Cheers, Richard.