Clark C . Evans [mailto:cce@...] wrote:
> | Would there be just one URL directive and some way of
> | telling whether the
> | schema is "a text of comments" or "machine readable"? Would
> | we end up adding
> | a SCHEMA-TYPE directive instead? Would we rue the day we
> | used 'SCHEMA' for
> | something which isn't machine-readable?
> No additional directives. We only put one constraint on SCHEMA 1.0,
> that is, a blank schema allows any content. That's all. No worms.
> If a processor becomes schema aware, it just dereferences the schema
> and reads it. If it finds a SCHEMA 0.1 (just a file with comments)
> then the schema allows anything... no schema restrictions.
How can it tell whether the file is just a file with comments, or a
machine-readable file? Also this means that the schema file *must* be
accessible to the parser, even if it is "just a comments file" and accessing
it is not really necessary (except for ensuring it is in fact a comments
Can we *please* leave SCHEMA out of YAML:1.0? The current spec already
states that a YAML1.0 parser, if seeing an unknown directive (such as
'SCHEMA') should ignore it (with a warning), so you get the effect you want
- the parser in effect treats the file as if it has the 'any content'
schema... It seems we can't do any better then that for YAML:1.0 anyway,
either with or without a 'SCHEMA' directive.
I don't see the advantage in adding one before there's a machine readable
format... And plenty of problems.