It's a technical distinction without a practical difference. They are both declarative languages to describe data.
Why is it so horrible? Have you ever typed a <ul><li> list? Or <input name="key" value="value">? What exactly is so difficult about this syntax in XML but completely fine in HTML?
The point isn't whether you can represent a document in JSON, it's about how easy it is for a human to manage it. The XML/HTML structure is far easier as things get more complex. The page you linked to shows this quite clearly even with the small "Bulleted List Example" at the bottom.
> It's a technical distinction without a practical difference.
There's a lot of practical differences when actually implementing configuration with either XML or JSON, due to technical distinctions.
> The point isn't whether you can represent a document in JSON, it's about how easy it is for a human to manage it.
If XML is easier to manage, why are people shifting from XML and to JSON for configuration? You may have some experience with HTML, but have you actually used some of these XML abominations that are used for configuration?
> The XML/HTML structure is far easier as things get more complex.
Configuration files shouldn't be complex. They're mostly key-value pairs, perhaps a couple of lists here and there and a modest amount of nesting. XML is complex to begin with.
Perhaps at some stage, for some use-cases, XML starts becoming simpler to edit. Configuration files generally isn't one of them.
> The page you linked to shows this quite clearly even with the small "Bulleted List Example" at the bottom.
It's an example of representing XML-like structure with JSON, which is fairly easy. Try it the other way around, things get hairy. If you were to represent the data as JSON, you wouldn't write it like that.
If config is small, both formats are easy and it doesn't matter. When config is large and complex then both formats can be hard, however XML is much easier than JSON as complexity climbs. My evidence is how many people easily edit large complex document structures in HTML already without issue.
I'm just not sure what the argument against this is other than verbosity. Config files shouldn't be complex? Sure, but what if they are? Are people really moving to JSON everywhere or is it just tied to the rise of Javascript and web frameworks?
> If config is small, both formats are easy and it doesn't matter.
Even if I would agree with this (which I don't), if it doesn't matter then you should pick JSON because it's easier to work with as a developer and it doesn't require XML parsing as a dependency.
> My evidence is how many people easily edit large complex document structures in HTML already without issue.
This isn't evidence at all. An HTML document is not a configuration file. Even then, people rarely author large HTML documents by hand these days. It's more likely that they're using a simpler language like Markdown to author documents.
> Are people really moving to JSON everywhere or is it just tied to the rise of Javascript and web frameworks?
If Javascript and web frameworks are responsible for the rise of JSON, but XML is better, why didn't they stick with XML? Remember, SOAP was XML. AJAX stands for "asynchronous Javascript and XML". The way to do an HTTP request (before fetch) from Javascript was called (inappropriately) XMLHTTPRequest. JSON on the other hand was just an informal spec with several flaws, yet it won out over XML.
1) What I mean by "it doesn't matter" is that at small scale, neither one easier than the other.
2) JSON does need to be parsed and does add a dependency. Javascript is not the only language out there.
3) HTML not being config files is not the point. The document/tag structure is identical. If you can edit large complex HTML files (regardless of how they are generated) then you can edit large complex XML files. And it's rather easy to do so, against the claims that XML is so hard to work with.
4) There are plenty of XML configs out there, backing just about every piece of software you use. If you only focus on web/js projects then JSON "won out" because it is a simple dump of the in-memory representation rather than a more formal serialization like XML. The missing features like JsonPath and Json Schema are now being added back to turn it into a proper serialization format. When storing configs, these schema features are rather important.
1) Yes, if they're both easy to use, pick JSON - for simplicity's sake.
2) A JSON parser is a far smaller and simpler dependency than an XML parser, especially when we're adding XPath to the mix.
3) XML isn't necessarily hard, it's tedious.
4) There's plenty of legacy software out there using all kinds of stuff for config. You don't see a lot of people choosing XML these days. You see YAML or TOML or JSON, even though all of these have issues of their own. JSON happens to be the simplest and most commonly supported.
HTML is distinctly not XML. There is XHTML if you want to use a form of HTML that is processed like XML, but XML processing is a lot stricter than HTML processing in which you can take a lot more liberties in the markup and still end up with a readable result, maybe even what you intended, whereas an XML processor will usually refuse to render incorrect XML markup at all.
I'm comparing the data structure and editing ergonomics (which are identical) between XML and HTML, not how they are processed. It's good for config files to have precise parsing instead of tolerating errors.
Why is it so horrible? Have you ever typed a <ul><li> list? Or <input name="key" value="value">? What exactly is so difficult about this syntax in XML but completely fine in HTML?
The point isn't whether you can represent a document in JSON, it's about how easy it is for a human to manage it. The XML/HTML structure is far easier as things get more complex. The page you linked to shows this quite clearly even with the small "Bulleted List Example" at the bottom.