* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-18 12:55]: > First of all, read that thoroughly. That should take you a few > days.
I know, right? When I mention that I always that the YAML spec is much more complex than the XML spec and the XML Namespaces spec put together. (Despite the XML and Namespaces specs being a good deal more rigorous, btw.) > JSON is fairly well implemented and new implementations are > trivial. This is not true for YAML. Trying to define a minimum > standard of YAML for extended TAP is a quagmire. With JSON, we > can punt and just point to a fairly well-established JSON spec. Are we still considering human readability a goal for TAP? That would explain why YAML and not some other format. (However, YAML too is human-readable only if you stick to the core 5% of its syntax. I’m not forgetting that.) > And for those who would argue for YAML::Tiny as our spec, it > already has limitations that hit us at the BBC. In what way, and why would that be relevant to TAP? Would JSON not have those same limitations? (It’s kinda funny that I’m finding myself the YAML’s advocate now, considering how much I dislike it in general…) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
