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. > 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. > http://myarch.com/why-xml-is-bad-for-humans > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-sbxml.html You might like this one too: http://www.schnada.de/grapt/eriknaggum-xmlrant.html > > I also have to maintain a few applications that internally use XML as > data format: while they are tolerable, they still leave smth to be > desired, as those applications are really slow for larger datasets, I thought we were talking about configuration files, not "larger datasets". > There are demonstrable benefits to this too: I for one am happy that > ReST is available for me and I don't have to learn a behemoth such as > DocBook to write documentation. DocBook is so far off my radar I'd have never thought of it. I just now learned that it's not Windows-only. There is already POD, Pydoc, Texinfo, a billion or so flavors of wiki markup, vanilla LaTeX, and most straightforwardly of all, plain old ascii. ReST was another solution in search of a problem. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
