From a personal perspective, I'm an admirer of JSON and its clarity
and simplicity, and also prefer only-one-format. It's hard to
negotiate between two formats over the wire and get that right.
From a standardization perspective, since JSON is already an RFC, and
because IETF reviewers
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:36:15PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18 15:30]:
YAML does support things that JSON does not (types, embedded
documents, etc) but I've been in doubt that we'd ever need
those things for TAP anyway.
That would be
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-20T13:59:14]
Aren't these two separate concerns, human versus machine readability? The
latter rarely respects ambiguity.
Yes.
Right now, there seem to be two pro-YAML arguments.
(1) It's easier to for humans read.
Sure. I will admit that. It is
--- On Thu, 21/8/08, Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-20T13:59:14]
Aren't these two separate concerns, human versus
machine readability? The
latter rarely respects ambiguity.
Yes.
Right now, there seem to be two pro-YAML arguments.
(1)
# from Ovid
# on Thursday 21 August 2008 09:28:
(2) YAML is better suited for complex serialization than JSON.
1. YAML is prettier.
2. JSON, unlike YAML, is stable.
Let's not forget that the debated requirement for diagnostics is that
the generators and consumers speak the same language
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-21T12:46:59]
# from Ovid
1. YAML is prettier.
2. JSON, unlike YAML, is stable.
Let's not forget that the debated requirement for diagnostics is that
the generators and consumers speak the same language
Does it have to be just one? Now and
Folks, this really, really needs to go to the IETF list. I mentioned in here
because the list wasn't set up yet, but IETF list is the official spot for this
and we can avoid spamming people here with this. That being said, on with the
show! ...
--- On Thu, 21/8/08, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL
On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:57, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Ovid (and I) would like it to be JSON, pending any better idea (that
we agree
is better).
I'm in the JSON camp too.
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
On Aug 21, 2008, at 09:57, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Schwern would like it to be YAML (a superset of JSON), with the
phrasing
consumers MUST understand JSON and SHOULD understand YAML.
+1
David
Ovid wrote:
Folks, this really, really needs to go to the IETF list.
What IETF list?
--
Ahh email, my old friend. Do you know that revenge is a dish that is best
served cold? And it is very cold on the Internet!
On 21 Aug 2008, at 23:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
What IETF list?
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-21 18:50]:
Does it have to be just one? Now and forever?
It doesn’t have to be *just* one, but it needs to be *at least*
one, and specifically at least one that *everyone* supports, so
that you can count on having a way to make an emitter and
consumer
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18T06:50:00]
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
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18T09:27:57]
What's the latest consensus on the best pure-perl JSON module? And
ditto for JSON via XS?
JSON and JSON::XS, most likely. Certainly JSON::XS.
--
rjbs
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18T11:17:25]
Oh, definitely agreed. I cannot assert that non-Perl implementations of JSON
are any better, but JSON is simple enough that I'm pretty damned sure they
are. However, YAML is so problematic that I *CAN* state that non-Perl
versions are often as
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18T12:26:54]
YAML types can be little more than local tags which only have meaning to that
particular document.
name: !customer Evil Business Guy Made Of Butter
Yeah, that's neat and everything, but there aren't any Perl implementations
that
Hi all,
One issue which arose at YAPC::EU was the problem with machine-readable TAP
diagnostics. Since they're not yet implemented, we can change them. The
problem we wound up with was that we have two things to specify: core TAP and
extended TAP. Core TAP is simple (well, uh, mostly), but
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:50:00AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
Thoughts?
Agreement.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts?
Likewise, agreed.
What's the latest consensus on the best pure-perl JSON module? And
ditto for JSON via XS?
David
Ovid wrote:
Thoughts?
++
There are some other things to work out though, like how do we decide
that a JSON doc has begun (YAML has the nice --- thing), etc. YAML does
support things that JSON does not (types, embedded documents, etc) but
I've been in doubt that we'd ever need those things
* 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
* Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18 15:30]:
YAML does support things that JSON does not (types, embedded
documents, etc) but I've been in doubt that we'd ever need
those things for TAP anyway.
That would be useful if any of the YAML producers were capable of
serialising tricky data
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we still considering human readability a goal for TAP? That
For basic TAP, I think it should be a goal. For extended TAP, I
think the goal is more about machine-readable output so that
diagnostics can be collected
--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
++
There are some other things to work out though, like how do
we decide
that a JSON doc has begun (YAML has the nice --- thing),
etc. YAML does
support things that JSON does not (types, embedded
documents, etc) but
I've been
--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
I was about to
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YAML::Tiny seems to do everything that JSON does, so I must now eat crow
(nom, nom, nom, gag).
Well, hope you found it tasty, but JSON is still a reasonable
alternative to consider if non-Perl implementations are better than
Ovid wrote:
One issue which arose at YAPC::EU was the problem with machine-readable TAP
diagnostics.
Since they're not yet implemented, we can change them. The problem we wound
up with was
that we have two things to specify: core TAP and extended TAP. Core TAP is
simple
(well, uh,
On Aug 18, 2008, at 07:03, Ovid wrote:
Those are certainly important issues, but JSON will make some of
them trivial. The YAML types, embedded documents and the one
format to rule them all concept is precisely what makes it
unsuitable for TAP. That's a damned shame because if there was
Ovid wrote:
--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YAML has several important things that JSON is lacking.
Without going into detail, I'll just say that you raise some valid points. I
agree with some and not with others, but we should defer this discussion
--- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should start the process by specifying TAP
version 12 aka core TAP.
The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension
discussion should be
orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process.
That's the
Ovid wrote:
--- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should start the process by specifying TAP
version 12 aka core TAP.
The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension
discussion should be
orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization
* Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-18 17:35]:
I prefer JSON aesthetically apart from any technical
considerations. I don't actually find YAML all that
readable. To programmers' eyes JSON looks more like
code - presumably because it is :)
YAML requires less quoting and backslashing.
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 18 August 2008 16:55:
The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension
discussion should be
orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process.
That's the stance I took in Copenhagen last week. I was unanimously
voted down.
Seeing as
33 matches
Mail list logo
