New better alterative to XML, JSON and YAML

And they are quite different!

But English is not the largest language in terms of the number of speakers. I speak Korean for example and three-digit grouping is unnatural in Korean, which uses myriads instead. I guess Xenon is designed to be not comfortable for the vast majority of people including me then?

> Having special names, like $type, and hoping no language uses them is fragile.

I was not proposing special names after all. Xenon clearly has a much better extension point, namely the type string. You can have just one reserved character, which is very unlikely to appear in verbatim, and use it for the extension. And it is even unclear whether JSON's use of `$` for such special names was fragile after all, given that such complaint seems uncommon. (I complained about that in the past, but I mean others seemed to be cool.)

In addition, I don't think you have mapped enough languages to conclude so anyway. For example, can you list all popular enough languages that allow `$` in identifiers? While whether to allow `$` or not requires a single example, maybe you have missed other identifiers in other languages! (Angle brackets are also common in stringified types, after all.) So I expected you to have at least looked at them for your conclusion.

Based on special syntax. You're about to introduce node attributes.

> They are common in data.

I use tables everyday. May I have "first-class graph support" but for tabular data that is very common as well? I expected three or four times you eventually explain what makes the graph support and how it differs from declaring ids and refs in other formats you think are worse than yours. No answer.

> Separate attributes and sub elements is a mistake. One should be able to guess an ᴀᴘɪ.

For the first, I kind of agree that attributes and subnodes should be unified in favor of subnodes (which was sacrificed for markups like HTML for sane brevity sake). However attributes, your ids are, may be metadata for nodes of any kind. For the second, API for what? Document generating/parsing API? Validation API? Serialization/deserialization API? Enveloped application API? I guess, the latter for whatever reason dictated in your "standard" . In any case documentation, schemas, data validators and autocompletes are my best friends, no need to "guess".

> That is laborours! A Xᴇɴᴏɴ library provides AsGuid, AsDateTime etc.. and serialization directly to/from those types.

What you're mentioning is called serialization and deserialization, and these two be easily implemented once for "basic" types and extended at the application level for any kind of data, because an application decides what to do with data on its own, not the format the data is enveloped in. Serialization and deserialization don't exist from the format perspective which only defines the syntax way data is marked up in a document. So why would it care the formatting at all?

> Yes. Human have to read markup.

Format should not care too much.

> I repeat! READABILITY.

No yelling please. Regional formats are defined by countries, not languages you said elsewhere, just by definition, even if English is the lingua franca. Separate digits with underscores or spaces.

I'm very happy your "standard" neither recommend color highlighting for, say, numbers, nor even worse has special syntax for readability highlighting. Highlighting increases readability greatly as well, you know.

> No, quite the opposite.

6:4 but 1:3 is a great syntax win. Okay.

No any solid counter arguments from your side being blind for obvious design flaws of your so-called format "standard" only tells how you mixed up all concepts in a mess of crazy syntax markup, and scalar object formatting for scalars that only must be handled by applications while serialization and deserialization regardless the markup format "standard" recommends.

Good luck with your "standard" rightly criticized and rejected by others, but better just bury it not spending your life for nothing. Sincerely.