New better alterative to XML, JSON and YAML

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall reception

  • Majority of comments are skeptical or negative; several call the syntax ugly, confusing, or “XML-lite.”
  • A few commenters express interest, praising the idea of something more structured than JSON/YAML but less verbose than XML.
  • Some meta-discussion criticizes rude replies and stresses being constructive, while others defend blunt “comment card” style opinions.

Claims about Xenon’s advantages

  • Author repeatedly claims Xenon is more terse than JSON and XML, citing fewer characters for key–value pairs and native array syntax.
  • Advertised features: readable multi-line text, native arrays and graphs (multiple parents per node), type hints for serialization, no attributes, comments, named top-level document, and potential for very fast, “mode-less” tokenization.

Syntactic and usability critiques

  • Many find the angle-bracket-heavy syntax hard to read and type, especially array markers like <<Name> … <<$>.
  • Unbalanced and multi-character delimiters (<<, <&>, <<$>, #id, @id, % for comments) are seen as cryptic and high cognitive load.
  • Several argue JSON is simpler, more familiar, and usually at least as terse once editor auto-completion is considered.
  • Some say “terse” here veers into “cryptic,” undercutting the “efficient to write by hand” goal.

Data model, typing, and graphs

  • Critics say the spec’s data model is underspecified and scattered; key concepts (objects, arrays, scalars, names, types, IDs, references) and their relationships are not clearly defined.
  • Lack of explicit scalar types is viewed as a major interoperability risk (string vs number vs boolean vs datetime, etc.), echoing long-standing XML issues.
  • Native graph support is contentious: author insists graphs must be first-class; others argue most data is tree- or DAG-shaped and that built‑in references increase complexity and DoS risk (e.g., XML-style “billion laughs”).

Performance, encoding, and canonicalization

  • “Mode-less tokenizer” and “blazingly fast” claims are challenged as unsubstantiated; no clear benchmarks are shown in the thread.
  • Debate over requiring/recommending UTF‑8 BOM; several note Unicode explicitly discourages BOM for UTF‑8.
  • Numeric formatting with commas and locale assumptions draws strong pushback; seen as unnecessary and non-universal.
  • Lack of a clear canonical subset is criticized, especially for cryptographic or deterministic uses; author replies that “well‑formed Xenon” via a DOM could serve.

Ecosystem, positioning, and tone

  • Commenters stress that XML/JSON’s main advantages are adoption, tooling, and schema ecosystems; a “better” format must address this, not just terseness.
  • Several say the marketing (“best way,” “better alternative”) is overconfident given immature tooling and minimal community.
  • Some perceive the author as dismissive or defensive (“silenced all criticism”), further souring reception.