leaving the acronym aside, I'm puzzled why AJAX is showing up on xml.com. One of the first and most important performance enhancements regarding "AJAX" is to avoid using XML. Responses are being passed as JavaScript, with at most a single XML tag with a cdata.
Kendall you said it - JSON is certainly not always faster. It depends greatly on various factors like the amount of data, what client side data processing has to be done, if knowledge of data types is needed, if you are consuming web services and so on. Particularly in IE you can choose either XML or JSON with a slight performance edge going to XML.
I know that for our AJAX DataGrid product JavaScript is far to slow for things like client side sorting so XML + XSL is the only way to go.
Hmm, well, one of the points Dave made is that JSON is *not* always faster than XML. But the real reason is that XML.com's writers, editors, and audience have always been really interested in the Web. Stuff about the Web that's not necessarily hard-core XML has always been fair game around here.
AJAX is no exception.
That and XML.com announced an editorial re-focus earlier this year which included a greater focus on the Web, web development, what people like to call Web 2.0, and post-XML specification worlds.
Previous Message
