Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
> 
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > About CSV, while I'm not opposed to it we have a practice guideline to use
> > JSON for machine-parseable output. One reason is that JSON is better at
> > being self-describing - the field names give you clues that CSV doesn't. 
> 
> CSV is readable by eye without a lot of effort.  JSON is close to encrypted.

Say *what*?  Uh, I can only conjecture that you don't have a lot of actual
experience with JSON.

> Many CSV files have a comment line on top with the field names.

Good idea. Gonna be *mandatory* for anybody generating CSV in our
pond.  Also strict conformance to RFC4180, at pain of my extreme
displeasure. Data formats that aren't well-standardized and
self-describing give me hives - they always, always, *always* cause
trouble down the road.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to