A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:54:50 +0100, > Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are >> clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever >> seen. they >> need help, not users. > > IMHO that's a bit extreme. Specifications are written to be detailed, so > consequently they're torture to read. Seen the ReStructured Text spec > lately?
Agreed. If you just want to use it, you don't need the spec anyway. > The basic idea -- a data dumping format that's human-readable -- isn't a bad > one. OTOH, I can't recall wanting such a thing -- when I want readable > output I'm happy using > unreadable pickle files, unpickling the object and calling a .dump() or > .as_text() method.) > > But YAML seems to have started out with the goal of being human-writable, > something you would write in Emacs, Exactly. I use it as a format for config files the user can edit directly without much thinking (the explanation on top of the file are 3 lines). > and that seems to have gotten lost; the > format is now just as complicated as Restructured Text, but more cryptic > (the URI namespacing for tags, for example), not really simpler than > XML and in some ways weaker (e.g. only two encodings supported, more > complicated escaping rules). In most cases you don't need the complicated things, and the http://www.yaml.org/refcard.html isn't very complex either. Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
