> On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I liked it because I agree with the TOML author that the YAML spec > gives rage; YAML seems to be defined as a bunch of things that the end > user is supposed to think are intuitive, but try understanding and > correctly parsing the full set of what is allowed... TOML on the other > hand is short. > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 27 October 2014 19:23, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >>> Ugh, I hate TOML. I’m -1 on any of the standards using it, but I also >>> think the standards should be around data exchange and should just use >>> JSON and leave front end stuff like that up to the implementations. >> >> I had a quick glance at TOML, and I can't say I was particularly >> enamoured by it. I don't see that it has any particularly huge >> benefits over "plain" ini files (if your needs are simple) or YAML >> (ignoring the over-complicated stuff that nobody actually needs). >> >> +1 on JSON for "internal" format, and tools deciding for themselves on >> the best user-facing format. >> >> I'm also not sure I see the value of mapping directly to a dict. >> Surely internal formats should be isolated from the user interface, >> not exposed directly? >> Paul
The YAML spec isn’t for end users any more than the various HTTP RFCs are for end users. The spec is for people implementing a yam parser/encoder and when implementing a spec the less ambiguity and the more verbose the spec is, the better. It’s not a very good argument though, because JSON is the better format for data exchange and that’s all the standards should be focused on. If someone wants to make a tool that uses TOML and emits standard metadata (when that becomes a thing outside of Wheels) more power to them. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
