I'm always here and on irc and using and promoting YAML every day. :)
I'm not too fussed about the references to JSON, but I think the fact that it is listed under Prior Art is not quite right.
I might add a sentence to the Relation to JSON section, along the lines of:
"YAML was created in 2001 and JSON was created independently in 2005, but ended up being an almost perfect subset (of the insanely complicated and all inclusive YAML)"
OK just kidding on the parenthesized part. Oren, I think Trans has a point that the spec gives the feel that YAML is derivative. But I think we could fix it as easily as saying "YAML is not a derivative of JSON".
I don't see why you HAVE to refer to JSON at all expect to say "By the
On Jun 29, 1:07 am, Oren Ben-Kiki <o...@ben-kiki.org> wrote:
> Yes, this is exactly right. YAML started way before JSON and isn't a
> derivative work; JSON started later and isn't a derivative of YAML, either.
> It just happened that JSON was oh-so-close to being a proper subset of YAML
> at the time, so people were complaining about the few remaining edge cases.
> We therefore went over the YAML spec and tweaked a few things to ensure YAML
> was a proper super-set of JSON. We couldn't do that without referring to
> JSON in the spec, of course.
way, JSON is a valid subset of YAML." The spec certainly never
referred to JSON before JSON existed and those edge cases that needed
adjustment to make JSON a valid subset could have been adjusted
without reference, or at most a footnote.
Moreover, when its says thing like: "These styles can be viewed as the
natural extension of JSON" in the spec, it begins to feel very much
like a derivative work of JSON.
A "growth path"? Really?
> Given JSON's popularity, this was a good move IMO. We now have a very simple
> machine-readable format (JSON) and a clear growth path for increased human
> readability and additional features (tagging, references, etc.). It also
> allows using YAML libraries to directly load JSON data.
Have you stopped using YAML and now use JSON? I'm probably reading too
far between the lines, but maybe I'm catching a slight hint here in
they way you have phrased this?
Clark, Ingy, haven't header from you guys in a LONG time either. Are
you still using YAML?
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
Yaml-core mailing list