History repeats itself, sometimes with a little twist. Just like some people tried to shoehorn XML to do stuff it was never intended to be used for and which drove solutions like JSON, now others try to showhorn JSON to do stuff, XML was actually designed for. Here the part of the O’Reilly article that triggered my anger:
XML is a very future-proof method for ensuring long-term protection of content. It is the format chosen by many digital archives and national libraries. True, JSON has become very popular of late, but it is mainly used today for API development, financial transactions, and messaging — and by web developers. I think JSON has a long way to go before it supplants XML — as we know and use it today — as a structured content format for use in publishing.
Why? Why? Why? Why should JSON ever supplant XML? As he himself says: XML shines for structured content today. JSON is near perfect for API communication, transactions and messaging. If you want something simpler than XML use HTML[enter favorite version >=5]. XML is a chore to use in APIs, transactions etc. JSON will suck for structured content. If we add stuff to make it suck less for structured content, it will very likely become a less optimal solution for what we use it today. Next step would probably be JSON light or something.
Stop asking this question. If you are asked this question, stop answering. Stop looking for the silver bullet. For the less technically inclined: just because you can create tables in Powerpoint, you shouldn’t use it as an Excel replacement. The opposite is true as well. This debate is just plain stupid.