Joe Lapp wrote:
> I just wanted to add one clarification:
> I think YAML is shaping up to be a pretty
> good serialization language.
> My only real nit with YAML as a serialization
> language is its strict formatting, but I understand
> that this is more a religious issue than a technical
There are technical angles too..
> But YAML's focus on serialization introduces more
> complexity than I want, which keeps YAML from being
> the gold I'm looking for. My search goes on...
I agree that the serialization goal introduces
unavoidable complexities. However I think that
whatever we come up with, if you consider the
subset you'll need in order to solve your simpler
use cases (e.g., relational DBs), you'll discover
the results is a pretty good solution. So don't
give up on us completely just yet.