On Mar 4, 12:52 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mk <mrk...@gmail.com> writes: > > OK, but how? How would you make up e.g. for JSON's lack of comments? > > Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments.
If you don't control the JSON standard, providing a compelling alternative to JSON might be the best way to force JSON to accomodate a wider audience. It might just be that the people behind JSON deliberately avoid comments, because it's not in the scope of the problem they are trying to solve. Hence another need for alternatives. > > OTOH, if YAML produces net benefit for as few as, say, 200 people in > > real world, the effort to make it has been well worth it. > > Not if 200,000 other people have to deal with it but don't receive the > benefit. > How many hundreds of thousands of people have had to deal with XML without receiving its benefits? Do well-established standards get an exemption from the rule that software is not allowed to annoy non- willing users of it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
