From: T. O. <tra...@ru...> - 2004-09-05 18:36:34
|
On Sunday 05 September 2004 01:09 am, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > <FRUSTRATION> > > I'm simply not getting through, am I? I understand you concerns. I am trying to address them. Do you understand=20 mine? Are you trying to address them, or just knocking 'em down? > - I DON'T want there to be 3 different ways to write the same "!int" tag = in > the mixed doc. Specifically, I don't want to have to write !john/int insi= de > "john" islands, "!jane/int" inside "jane" islands, and "!int" everywhere > else. I want ONE way to write "!int". What islands? You can use all three. It's a "cojoined" document and it acts= =20 like one. If you migrate to a truly "mixed" document you would have just on= e=20 way to write !int. > - I DON'T want to have to lookup each !tag in a table when I globalize wh= at > was originally a "private" file. I want the default %TAG (or whatever > mechanism) to somehow play nice with yaml.org tags. What table? Are you talking personally? The I don't know what table your=20 talking about. Are you talking about in the implementation? If so any=20 implementation is going to have to lookup its known types. Adding an extra = !=20 to divide the potentially known YAML types from potentially known private=20 types, makes no significant difference. The argument about name clash is to= o=20 rare a case to worry about. Think about that, last one. Lets say one day YAML adds a !point. Well, i've= =20 been using point already. Will it screw me up? (even putting YAML versions= =20 aside, which in itself would help) if already use !point, it's because of=20 made my own native type, and point is being converted to that. Since my typ= es=20 take priority over YAML types, there is no problem. So it does play nice. > - I DON'T want to have to lookup each !tag in a table when I cut some text > from a "john" file to a "mixed" file. I want such "fixing" to consist of a > simple "s/some/thing/g". There was hardly a difference between either result! My mixed: =A0 --- !*john-jane.our.org,2004/ =A0 - !john/mixin 1 =A0 - !john/these 2 =A0 - !john/names 3 =A0 - !jane/mixin 1 =A0 - !jane/these 2 =A0 - !jane/names 3 =A0 - !int 10 Your mixed: =A0 %TAG john-jane.our.org,2004: =A0 --- =A0 - !!john/mixin 1 =A0 - !!john/these 2 =A0 - !!john/names 3 =A0 - !!jane/mixin 1 =A0 - !!jane/these 2 =A0 - !!jane/names 3 =A0 - !int 10 Or are you talking about cojoined? My cojoined: =A0 %TAG *john.our.org,2004:^john =A0 %TAG *jane.our.org,2004:^jane =A0 --- =A0 - !john/mixin 1 =A0 - !john/these 2 =A0 - !john/names 3 =A0 - !jane/mixin 1 =A0 - !jane/these 2 =A0 - !jane/names 3 =A0 - !int Your cojoined: =A0 %TAG john.our.org,2004:!john =A0 %TAG jane.our.org,2004:!jane =A0 --- =A0 - !john!mixin 1 =A0 - !john!these 2 =A0 - !john!names 3 =A0 - !jane!mixin 1 =A0 - !jane!these 2 =A0 - !jane!names 3 =A0 - !int 10 I don;t see how s/this/orthat/ is going be significantly differ. > > Okay, sorry. Enough of the tit-for-tat. > > Right on! > > I'm hereby simply going to ignore every posting that doesn't even _try_ to > address the above. Alas, this includes proposal #9. Sorry Clark, not only > it is a big mess of complexity, but worse of all, it simply doesn't do wh= at > I'm asking for :-( Ignore whatever you like. I want it to do what you want TOO. But honestly I= =20 fail to see how it doesn't. By the way, I like #7. Its syntax, especially. And its backward compatibili= ty=20 is great too. But I think what Clark is now developing gets more to the hea= rt=20 of the matter. Perhaps a #7b will become more like #9a, or vice-versa, and= =20 we'll have a solution. We just need to keep at it. =2D-=20 T. |