On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this issue or else they > don't. JSON (as currently defined) is a machine-to-machine > serialization format and just isn't that good a choice for handwritten > files. Adding a comment specification is a small perturbation that > might be accepted into the standard, but a big departure like RSON is a > whole nother creature. > > > 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? > > We already have to deal with XML. So using XML for config files doesn't > require anyone to deal with any lousy formats that they didn't have to > deal with before. So the basic answer to your question about > well-established standards is yes: one annoying but standardized format > is better than multiple annoying unstandardized ones.
<question type="rhetorical"> Does this mean we should stick with XML until the end of time? </question> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
