Human-readable syntax and significant indentation for structure.
| Human-friendly , Readable and Supports complex data structures.
| Can be ambiguous \ May not be suitable for all scenarios
|
Lightweight and widely used for simple syntax.
| Widely supported , Easy to read and write excellent for web applications.
| Not as readable as YAML and lack of comments in standard JSON
|
Minimalistic syntax and key-value pairs and tables.
| Easy to read and write and suitable for configuration files.
| May not support complex structures as well as YAML or JSON
|
Uses tags and attributes for hierarchy.
| Well-established and excellent for complex hierarchical data structures.
| Verbosity can make it less readable and requires parsing tools for efficient usage.
|
Simple tabular structure with rows and columns.
| Easy to create and read and widely supported.
| Lacks hierarchical structure and limited support for complex data types
|
Binary format for compactness.
| Compact binary representation and fast serialization/deserialization.
| Not human-readable and limited support in comparison to JSON and other text-based formats
|
JSON-compatible with a cleaner syntax.
| - JSON-like structure with improved readability.
| Less widely supported compared to JSON.
|
Binary representation with JSON data model.
| Efficient encoding and decoding and Compact size.
| Binary format is not human-readable and limited support compared to JSON and other text-based formats.
|
Updated version addressing ambiguities in YAML 1.1.
| Human-readable , supports complex data structures and Improved specification.
| Compatibility with older YAML 1.1 parsers may vary.
|