From: T. O. <tra...@ru...> - 2004-09-09 01:26:47
|
On Wednesday 08 September 2004 08:44 pm, Clark C. Evans wrote: > Yes. Oh. I think !!str will have to stay, unless we do, > > untagged other scalar -> ?string > > Which actually makes sense to me; it also keeps things consistent. > If an Application wishes to resolve '?string' to tag:yaml.org,2002:str > then that iis their choice. Sure, that's okay. It just means that "x" != !!str x If there's no problem with that, then ?string is acceptable. > | > P.S. If Oren wishes to include a 'resolution' phase that is in the spec > | > that talks about how all '?tags' are converted to private or global > | > tags... that is _fine_ with me... > | > | Just that they have to be resolved to something. If the app doesn't > | specify this something then: > | > | ?mapping -> tag:yaml.org,2002:map > | ?sequence -> tag:yaml.org,2002:seq > | ?scalar -> tag:yaml.org,2002:str > > At this point, I'd rather leave resolution out of the spec. With this > change, the parsed document has a valid YAML Representation, it may not > be "resolved" (ie, lacking ? tags), but the spec has served its purpose; > it has defined exactly what the parser should deliver to the Application. That's true. > If an Application wishes to use YAML Types, via the "resolution" process > you spelled out, fine. Perhaps with some built-in assistance from the > YAML Processor, great, but this isn't required nor specified. You had > proposed a dandy 'rep' type... it could resolve nodes into that, or what > ever else the developer wishes. I think _why's a good person to talk to about this. > | But the app should also keep a "tab" on them so it can round trip (?) > > Only if it wishes to "preserve" the exact structure of the YAML > Representation; and then, a schema could help so that you don't need > shadow objects. But, alas the only serious applications that are going > to worry about round-tripping data that isn't theirs will be generic > transformation tools, search engines, etc. Not your average day > shopping-cart-application. ;) Maybe so but that problem is already biting me in the arse. Basically I have a stream and I want to do some serious transform on just one kind of doc, but none of the others. So I have to round trip the others. Needless to say it ain't all coming out rosy :( Hopefully, I'll get it worked out. -- T. |