Re: RE: [Yaml-core] private and public types

[why t. l. s. <yam...@wh...>]

Oren Ben-Kiki (or...@ri...) wrote:
> sh...@zi... [mailto:sh...@zi...] wrote:
> > b) YAML users should realize that public types don't 
> > guarantee any level of implementation support; they only 
> > guarantee a centralized starting point for finding 
> > documentation and implementations.

Yeah, but type authors should be assured that implementations won't trash the typing in their YAML documents.  If an implementation doesn't understand the type exactly, it should at least understand that the type and the structure should be preserved. 

> > c) HTTP and YAML are the expected transport and format, 
> > respectively, for type documentation.  Departures from HTTP 
> > and YAML should be considered interoperability risks.
> 
> Only a dynamic-schema application may be interested in the documentation
> (e.g., YAML-validate-schema). Or a human.
> 

Or an RPC protocol perhaps.  You'd expect the domain type to have extra meaning in a RPC situation.  (See my message on posting News in the Endertromb web server from a few days back.) Whereas with local YAML processing, the domain type is merely a convenient nomenclature for organizing types.

_why