In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alan Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that is where a lot of markup languages fall down, in that they
end trying to develop a sophisticated metadata model that can capture
that kind of information, and re-engineering the markup to support it.
This
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read many specs; YAML (both the spec and the format) is easily
among the worst ten-or-so specs I've ever seen.
ReST and YAML share the same deep flaw: both formats are marketed as
simple, readable formats, and at a first
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 13:41 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Alan Kennedy wrote:
If I can't find such a markup language, then I might instead end up using a
WYSIWYG editing
component that gives the user a GUI and generates (x)html.
htmlArea: http://www.htmlarea.com/
Editlet:
Aahz wrote:
While I can see how you'd get that impression of reST, it's not true:
like Python, reST is intended to be simpl*er* and readable, but not
simple. The joy of reST is that I can concentrate on writing instead of
formatting, just as I do when writing Usenet posts. ;-) Even after
Aahz writes -
While I can see how you'd get that impression of reST, it's not true:
like Python, reST is intended to be simpl*er* and readable, but not
simple.
Really?
;)
Thanks for taking this one on. I was tempted. But scared ;)
I find reST quite useful.
Not a very sophisticated way to
[Alan Kennedy]
However, I'm torn on whether to use ReST for textual content. On the one
hand, it's looks pretty comprehensive and solidly implemented. But OTOH,
I'm concerned about complexity: I don't want to commit to ReST if it's
going to become a lot of hard work or highly-inefficient when I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alan Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'm torn on whether to use ReST for textual content. On the one
hand, it's looks pretty comprehensive and solidly implemented. But OTOH,
I'm concerned about complexity: I don't want to commit to ReST if it's
going to
rm wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20868 :-)
There's a lot of nonsense out there propagated by people who do not
understand XML. You can't possibly blame that on XML...
For me XSLT transformations are the main reason for using XML.
If I have an XML document I can turn it into other
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YAML looks to me to be completely insane, even compared to Python
lists. I think it would be great if the Python library exposed an
interface for parsing constant list and dict expressions, e.g.:
[1, 2, 'Joe Smith', 8237972883334L, # comment
rm wrote:
Doug Holton wrote:
rm wrote:
this implementation of their idea. But I'd love to see a generic,
pythonic data format.
That's a good idea. But really Python is already close to that. A
lot of times it is easier to just write out a python dictionary than
using a DB or XML or whatever.
Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YAML looks to me to be completely insane, even compared to Python
lists. I think it would be great if the Python library exposed an
interface for parsing constant list and dict expressions, e.g.:
[1, 2, 'Joe Smith',
[Effbot]
ReST and YAML share the same deep flaw: both formats are marketed
as simple, readable formats, and at a first glance, they look simple and read-
able -- but in reality, they're messy as hell, and chances are that the thing
you're looking at doesn't really mean what you think it means
Alan Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I'm torn on whether to use ReST for textual content. On the
one hand, it's looks pretty comprehensive and solidly implemented.
It seemed both unnecessary and horrendously overcomplicated when I
looked at it. I'd stay away.
So, I'm hoping that
Alan Kennedy wrote:
From what I've seen, pretty much every textual markup targetted for web
content, e.g. wiki markup,
seems to have grown/evolved organically, meaning that it is either
underpowered or overpowered,
full of special cases, doesn't have a meaningful object model, etc.
I
Doug Holton wrote:
You might like programming in XML then: http://www.meta-language.net/
:)
http://www.meta-language.net/sample.html#class-metal
I'm not so sure ;-)
Daniel Bickett
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
rm wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Reinhold Birkenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.
Oh please no, not another one of these. We really really don't need it.
well, I did
[Alan Kennedy]
From what I've seen, pretty much every textual markup targetted
for web content, e.g. wiki markup, seems to have grown/evolved
organically, meaning that it is either underpowered or overpowered,
full of special cases, doesn't have a meaningful object model, etc.
[Fredrik Lundh]
[Alan Kennedy]
So, I'm hoping that the learned folks here might be able to give me
some pointers to a markup language that has the following
characteristics
[Paul Rubin]
I'm a bit biased but I've been using Texinfo for a long time and have
been happy with it. It's reasonably lightweight to
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
Agreed. If you just want to use it, you don't need the spec anyway.
but the guy who wrote the parser you're using had to read it, and understand it.
judging from the number of crash reports you see in this thread, chances are
that
he didn't.
/F
--
Bengt Richter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:04:10 -0600, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:30:47 +0100,
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowadays, people are trying to create binary XML, XML databases,
graphics in XML (btw, I'm quite impressed by SVG), you have XSLT,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
IMHO that's a bit extreme. Specifications are written to be detailed, so
consequently they're torture to read. Seen the ReStructured Text spec
lately?
I've read many specs; YAML (both the spec and the format) is easily
among the worst ten-or-so specs
Doug Holton wrote:
What do you expect? YAML is designed for humans to use, XML is not.
YAML also hasn't had the backing and huge community behind it like XML.
XML sucks for people to have to write in, but is straightforward to
parse. The consequence is hordes of invalid XML files, leading to
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
100% right on, stuff (like this)? should be easy on the users, and if
possible, on the developers,
not the other way around.
I guess you both stopped reading before you got to the second paragraph
in my post. YAML (at least the version described in that spec)
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
100% right on, stuff (like this)? should be easy on the users, and if possible, on the developers,
not the other way around.
I guess you both stopped reading before you got to the second paragraph
in my post. YAML (at least the version described
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
and trust me, when things are hard to get right for developers, users will
suffer too.
That is exactly why YAML can be improved. But XML proves that getting
it right for developers has little to do with getting it right for
users (or for saving bandwidth). What's right for
rm wrote:
this implementation of their idea. But I'd love to see a generic,
pythonic data format.
That's a good idea. But really Python is already close to that. A lot
of times it is easier to just write out a python dictionary than using a
DB or XML or whatever. Python is already close to
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
furthermore, users will suffer too, I'm suffering if I have to use C++,
with all its exceptions
and special cases.
and when you suffer, your users will suffer. in the C++ case, they're likely to
suffer from spurious program crashes, massively delayed development
Doug Holton wrote:
What do you expect? YAML is designed for humans to use, XML is not.
YAML also hasn't had the backing and huge community behind it like XML.
XML sucks for people to have to write in, but is straightforward to
parse. The consequence is hordes of invalid XML files, leading to
Daniel Bickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my (brief) experience with YAML, it seemed like there were several
different ways of doing things, and I saw this as one of it's failures
(since we're all comparing it to XML).
YAML looks to me to be completely insane, even compared to Python
lists.
Steve Holden wrote:
It seems to me the misunderstanding here is that XML was ever intended
to be generated directly by typing in a text editor. It was rather
intended (unless I'm mistaken) as a process-to-process data interchange
metalanguage that would be *human_readable*.
The premise that XML
Doug Holton wrote:
rm wrote:
this implementation of their idea. But I'd love to see a generic,
pythonic data format.
That's a good idea. But really Python is already close to that. A lot
of times it is easier to just write out a python dictionary than using a
DB or XML or whatever. Python
Stephen Waterbury wrote:
The premise that XML had a coherent design intent
stetches my credulity beyond its elastic limit.
the design goals are listed in section 1.1 of the specification.
see tim bray's annotated spec for additional comments by one
of the team members:
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
lists. I think it would be great if the Python library exposed an
interface for parsing constant list and dict expressions, e.g.:
[1, 2, 'Joe Smith', 8237972883334L, # comment
{'Favorite fruits': ['apple', 'banana', 'pear']}, #
Paul Rubin wrote:
YAML looks to me to be completely insane, even compared to Python
lists. I think it would be great if the Python library exposed an
interface for parsing constant list and dict expressions, e.g.:
[1, 2, 'Joe Smith', 8237972883334L, # comment
{'Favorite fruits':
Alex Martelli wrote:
[1, 2, 'Joe Smith', 8237972883334L, # comment
{'Favorite fruits': ['apple', 'banana', 'pear']}, # another comment
'xyzzy', [3, 5, [3.14159, 2.71828, [
I don't see what YAML accomplishes that something like the above wouldn't.
Note that all the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
I wonder, however, if, as an even toyer exercise, one might not
already do it easily -- by first checking each token (as generated by
tokenize.generate_tokens) to ensure it's safe, and THEN eval _iff_ no
unsafe tokens were found in the check.
I don't
Doug Holton wrote:
That is exactly why YAML can be improved. But XML proves that getting
it right for developers has little to do with getting it right for
users (or for saving bandwidth). What's right for developers is what
requires the least amount of work. The problem is, that's what
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Stephen Waterbury wrote:
The premise that XML had a coherent design intent
stetches my credulity beyond its elastic limit.
the design goals are listed in section 1.1 of the specification.
see tim bray's annotated spec for additional comments by one
of the team members:
Bengt Richter wrote:
I thought XML was a good idea, but IMO requiring quotes around
even integer attribute values was an unfortunate decision.
I think it helps guard against incompetent authors who wouldn't
understand when they're required to use quotes and when they're not. I
see HTML pages all
Doug Holton wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
and trust me, when things are hard to get right for developers, users
will
suffer too.
That is exactly why YAML can be improved. But XML proves that getting
it right for developers has little to do with getting it right for
users (or for saving
Peter Hansen wrote:
Good question. The point is that an XML document is sometimes
a file, sometimes a record in a relational database, sometimes an
object delivered by an Object Request Broker, and sometimes a
stream of bytes arriving at a network socket.
These can all be described
Steve Holden wrote:
Yet again I will interject that XML was only ever intended to be wriiten
by programs. Hence its moronic stupidity and excellent uniformity.
Neither was HTML, neither were URLs, neither were many things used the
way they were intended. YAML, however, is specifically designed
You might like programming in XML then: http://www.meta-language.net/
Actually, the samples are hard to find, they are here:
http://www.meta-language.net/sample.html
Programming in XML makes Perl and PHP look like the cleanest languages
ever invented.
--
rm wrote:
well, I did look at it, and as a text format is more readable than XML is.
judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever seen.
they
need help, not users.
/F
--
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:30:47 +0100,
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowadays, people are trying to create binary XML, XML databases,
graphics in XML (btw, I'm quite impressed by SVG), you have XSLT, you
have XSL-FO, ... .
Which is an argument in favor of XML -- it's where the activity
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:54:50 +0100,
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever
seen. they
need help, not users.
IMHO that's a bit
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:04:10 -0600, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:30:47 +0100,
rm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowadays, people are trying to create binary XML, XML databases,
graphics in XML (btw, I'm quite impressed by SVG), you have XSLT, you
have
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:54:50 +0100,
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
judging from http://yaml.org/spec/current.html (750k), the YAML designers are
clearly insane. that's the most absurd software specification I've ever seen.
they
need help, not users.
IMHO that's a
Hello,
I know that there are different YAML engines for Python out there (Syck,
PyYaml, more?).
Which one do you use, and why?
For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.
Reinhold
--
I know that there are different YAML engines for Python out there (Syck,
PyYaml, more?).
Which one do you use, and why?
I first used yaml, tried to migrate to syck. What I like about syck is that
it is faster and doesn't try to create objects but only dicts - but it
crashed if the number of
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
I first used yaml, tried to migrate to syck. What I like about
syck is that it is faster and doesn't try to create objects but
only dicts - but it crashed if the number of yaml objects grew
larger. So I still use yaml.
Hmm.. I've never had any problems with syck. In
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again.
XML with elementtree is what makes me never have think about XML again.
Istvan.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Istvan Albert wrote:
XML with elementtree is what makes me never have think about XML again.
+1 QOTW
-Irmen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Reinhold Birkenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For those of you who don't know what YAML is: visit http://yaml.org/!
You will be amazed, and never think of XML again. Well, almost.
Oh please no, not another one of these. We really really don't need it.
--
54 matches
Mail list logo
