From: Clark C. E. <cc...@cl...> - 2004-02-05 16:06:53
|
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:40:32PM -0800, Sean O'Dell wrote: | On Wednesday 04 February 2004 06:26 pm, Clark C. Evans wrote: | > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 05:12:40PM -0800, Sean O'Dell wrote: | > | > tagged: | > | > Tagged nodes are those which appear in the YAML | > | > stream with a non-empty "!tag" or have been tagged | > | > by the resolver. Tagged nodes do not record if they | > | > were created from plain scalars or not, this 'hack flag' | > | > is only used during he tagging process. | > | | > | Is the resolver a new step in the loading process? | > | Parser->Loader->Resolver? | > | > The three stage breakdown in the spec is: | > | > representation -- modeling your native data structures in | > a langauge independent manner | > | > serialization -- flattening these representations so that | > they can pass through a sequential-access | > medium such as a series of event calls. | > | > presentation -- making the serializations look pretty | | Ah, so representation is essentially the fully canonical, resolved data | structure. Yep. | | So, at presentation level, there are lexical idioms which eventually get | translated into a simpler, more straight-forward serialization form? Well, the presentation level is your YAML syntax, your text document. And yes, there are lots of human presentation details which are not part of the document's YAML representation. | Again, I'm harping at the terminology thing, but I would have said: | | Complex Data Graph | Flattened Data Graph | Fully Resolved Data Graph | | Or something along those lines...something that newcomers can pick up on. Well, if you are worried about terminology, two days ago we got a rather nice email from Denis Howe who said: "The spec is fab btw, a model of conciseness and clarity, just like YAML." When asked about which version of the spec in a reply, he responded; "Yes, the 2004-01-29 version. The represent, serialize, present stuff made perfect sense, though it seemed to be stating the obvious. I guess that's a Good Thing in a spec." So, with that being our only "newcomer" feedback so far on the rewrite of the specification, I'm quite happy with the choice of terminology. Of course, we are always looking to improve! | Serialization is basically just eliminating the trickier syntax available to | fully-compliant YAML and putting it into a more uniform syntax, right? Well, I wasn't considering that serialization would have a syntax, but I suppose if it did, it would be something very close to the YAML canonical form, where styles, comments, etc. would be discarded. But really, it would be better to think of the serialization level as a sequential "event" API like SAX or something similar. Cheers! Clark P.S. I'm curious if you really dug-into the new spec on the website? |