Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format
in [Python]
|
Prev: [ANNC] pynguin-0.1 (python-based turtle graphics application)
Next: Detecting new removable drives in Linux
From: Steve Howell on 5 Mar 2010 00:36 On Mar 4, 9:36 pm, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...(a)canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > ReST was another solution in search of a problem. > > I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. > understanding as markup various typographical conventions > that make sense in plain text, such as underlined > headings, bullets, numbered paragraphs. > > Unfortunately it went overboard with a slew of cryptic > codes for footnotes, hyperlinks, etc. that nobody would > naturally think to use in a plain text document. > The same thing happened with YAML to a certain extent, from my perspective. YAML was never meant to be an exact alternative to XML, but its basic premise was sound--use indentation for more elegant syntax, and model its semantics more toward how data actually gets used internally by scripting languages in particular. But there is also some featuritis with YAML that makes it hard to digest and needlessly cumbersome to implement. JSON is not perfect by any means, but I consider it to be a more useful descendant of XML and YAML, even if it did not directly borrow from either. (YAML and JSON are certainly similar, but that could be a coincidental convergence.) Even if YAML itself has not been a resounding success, it set the bar to a certain degree.
From: Paul Rubin on 5 Mar 2010 02:46 Steve Howell <showell30(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments. > > If you don't control the JSON standard, providing a compelling > alternative to JSON might be the best way to force JSON to accomodate > a wider audience. Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this issue or else they don't. JSON (as currently defined) is a machine-to-machine serialization format and just isn't that good a choice for handwritten files. Adding a comment specification is a small perturbation that might be accepted into the standard, but a big departure like RSON is a whole nother creature. > How many hundreds of thousands of people have had to deal with XML > without receiving its benefits? Do well-established standards get an > exemption from the rule that software is not allowed to annoy non- > willing users of it? We already have to deal with XML. So using XML for config files doesn't require anyone to deal with any lousy formats that they didn't have to deal with before. So the basic answer to your question about well-established standards is yes: one annoying but standardized format is better than multiple annoying unstandardized ones.
From: Steven D'Aprano on 5 Mar 2010 03:05 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:06 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> ReST was another solution in search of a problem. > > I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. understanding as > markup various typographical conventions that make sense in plain text, > such as underlined headings, bullets, numbered paragraphs. > > Unfortunately it went overboard with a slew of cryptic codes for > footnotes, hyperlinks, etc. that nobody would naturally think to use in > a plain text document. I use footnotes all the time[1] in plain text documents and emails. I don't think there's anything bizarre about it at all. [1] When I say "all the time", I actually mean occasionally. -- Steven
From: John Bokma on 5 Mar 2010 10:55 Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:06 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote: > >> Paul Rubin wrote: >>> ReST was another solution in search of a problem. >> >> I think the basic idea behind ReST is quite good, i.e. understanding as >> markup various typographical conventions that make sense in plain text, >> such as underlined headings, bullets, numbered paragraphs. >> >> Unfortunately it went overboard with a slew of cryptic codes for >> footnotes, hyperlinks, etc. that nobody would naturally think to use in >> a plain text document. > > I use footnotes all the time[1] in plain text documents and emails. I > don't think there's anything bizarre about it at all. http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickref.html#footnotes [#]_. ... [#] the keyword is ReST. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development
From: Steve Howell on 5 Mar 2010 11:01
On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this issue or else they > don't. JSON (as currently defined) is a machine-to-machine > serialization format and just isn't that good a choice for handwritten > files. Adding a comment specification is a small perturbation that > might be accepted into the standard, but a big departure like RSON is a > whole nother creature. > > > How many hundreds of thousands of people have had to deal with XML > > without receiving its benefits? Do well-established standards get an > > exemption from the rule that software is not allowed to annoy non- > > willing users of it? > > We already have to deal with XML. So using XML for config files doesn't > require anyone to deal with any lousy formats that they didn't have to > deal with before. So the basic answer to your question about > well-established standards is yes: one annoying but standardized format > is better than multiple annoying unstandardized ones. <question type="rhetorical"> Does this mean we should stick with XML until the end of time? </question> |