[Playlist] Re: xspf over json

[Chris Anderson]

On 4/29/07, Lucas Gonze <lgonze at panix.com> wrote:
> My best answer is that there should continue to be a single interchange
> format, which I assume would be XML, but this would be complemented by
> libraries for converting to/from other format expression technologies.
> Developers would use whatever was convenient internally and only convert
> to XML at public interfaces.
>
> Thoughts?

I think you are onto something by suggesting that using the XML
version (which is versatile, semantically rich, and explicitly
specified) as the basis for derived expressions of XSPF (JSON etc)
will anchor future development around the spec, which is the big
interoperability win.

On the other hand, developers will inevitable have pragmatic reasons
(same origin policy) to use other dialects for public interfaces. The
best way to maintain standardization and interoperability among the
derived formats may be by endorsing preferred ways to translate into
those derived formats. For JSON, a javascript XSPF parser seems like a
good start.

If an ecosystem of in-browser libraries grows around a standard XPSF
-> JSON translation, then we'll see one dominant javascript playlist
object structure (JSPF) which can be easily generated from standard
XSPF, and used in all sorts of client-side scripts. The benefits from
a single JSON version of XSPF will be very similar to the benefits
we've already in the flourishing of user-friendly XSPF players.

-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com