well I agree it is complex, at some level complexity must be introduced for things that are considered to meet data serialization needs on an international basis. I fear there is no getting around that. At any rate YAML is less complex than XML. The benefit of YAML for Rebol is, I believe, simply that it was not invented specifically for Rebol. I think Rebol suffers somewhat from NIH syndrome, as far as data formats go (lots of arguments about how Rebol itself is a data format), and I think at some level below surface it has harmed Rebol in the minds of developers choosing languages.
On 4/19/06, Gregg Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Why not take YAML and then develop a seperate syntax for styling YAML i= nput=3D > > PN> To me, this is more a data serialisation format than a text markup fo= rmat. > > YAML is for data serialization. I've looked at it a bit, as it seems > at first glance to be a nice format. On further inspection, I decided > that it was more complex, and less elegant, the deeper you get into > the spec. > > I'd like to hear if someone else has used it successfully, and how > they think it compares to native REBOL format for real-world use. > > -- Gregg > > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
