Re: [Yaml-core] #7a, and comments on #9 - Ambiguous Tags

[Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...>]

On Sunday 05 September 2004 09:44, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> | But the way I see it this is a minor wording change in the spec
> | (instead of talking about a wart-ish 'plain scalar' bit).
>
> Actually, it impacts one of the diagrams to make it simpler.  The
> notion of 'tag resolution' is just gone.  This isn't a small
> wording change... I hope I made this clear in #9a.

Yes, it upgraded the A-bomb (#9) to an H-bomb (#9a) :-) I still think we just 
need a fly-swatter (#7).

> Having !sometag reported to my application as
> tag:private.yaml.org,2002:sometag is really hackish.  I put in !sometag,
> I should get 'sometag'.

1. In the context of #7, if you specify !tag, you get !yaml.org,2004:tag.

2. I suppose you meant, if I put in "!!tag", I should get "!tag". No, in the 
context of #7, if you put in "!<handle>!tag", you get "<value-of-handle>tag", 
and that also holds for "!!tag" and "<value-of-empty-handle>tag".

>   ---
>   - !int JMP
>
> is cooked to,
>
>   ---
>   - !tag:private.yaml.org,2002:int JMP
>
> I thought this was backwards compatible?

PLEASE... we are talking about #7 here, not #8. "!int" is cooked to "! 
yaml.org,2002:int". "!!private" is cooked to "<value-of-empty-handle>private" 
where "<value-of-empty-handle>" is either:

- Specified in an %TAG

- Is some default value (David suggests "tag:private.yaml.org,2002:", 
originally the proposal was "", both have pros and cons and its secondary to 
the proposal).

This *IS* backward compatible.

BTW, just for my curiosity. I haven't seen a single post that gives any down 
side to #7 (or #7a), other than "We don't like the extra !". Does _anone_ has 
any other problem with #7 other than the extra "!"? No credit for problems 
that also appear in #8 and #9 :-)

Have fun,

	Oren Ben-Kiki