Clark C . Evans wrote:
> I was musing on google a bit and found the following
> quote from a file archive proposal  posted to the
> perforce mailing list by Barrie Slaymaker: ...
I'm impressed with perforce. I used it in a company I worked with. It is a
pretty well thought-out version control system, the people there seems
smart, they keep track the industry, etc. It is good to know they view YAML
> This makes me think that we need a YAML vs XML page on our
> website; and ideally describe the transformation from XML
> into YAML. Further, there isn't a reason why libyaml can't
> have a --with-libxml or --with-expat to include XML parsing
> via the YAML information model. In other words, it'd encounter
> XML and dynamically convert the file into the proper YAML events.
Interesting notion. However, Barrie's problem was the reverse - he wanted to
be able to apply his XML tools to YAML. Perhaps what we need is a two-way
> In this way we could provide a nice migration path for people
> making configuration files. They can use both XML and YAML
> using one API... ours! Thoughts?
First, finish the spec and have a reference implementation. Without that out
the door, YAML would be a next to impossible "sell", XML migration or no XML