alt Hacker News> JSON doesn't seem a good choice for representing metadata in a format that aims to be universal. It is unnecessarily complicated for this purpose IMO
That's an odd statement. Can you please explain why you believe that JSON is "unnecessarily complicated" to represent metadata.
What's wrong with JSON?
* JSON is just barely powerful enough to need a library to parse it, but not powerful enough to have comments or trailing commas, so editing is needlessly annoying.
* It's human-readable, but deciphering nested data structures is annoying, especially when things are formatted as long lines. If you have to pipe something to jq to be able to read it, it's broken as a text-based document format.
* JSON is needlessly strict. If I write {foo: 5}, my intent is crystal clear. I shouldn't have to write {"foo": 5}. Come on. Who's really helped by this kind of syntactic hairshirt?
* despite being a strict schoolmarm of text formats, JSON is still vague. Yes, it has numbers. How big can they be? Who knows?
I mean, JSON is fine-ish, I guess, as an interchange format, in which I'm looking at it only for the occasional debugging session. But as a format for documents meant to be read by humans? Ugh. Anything, anything at all but JSON.