Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:18:38 -0700 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML Message-ID: <CAETOPp0c1xfMj1vDvQRSoV3ec-LdJmyT9AFH02iziN0yuY1D-A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <A1E63A7A-BB38-4CC3-B5EC-B251BE990572@mail.turbofuzz.com> References: <20140725044921.9F0D3580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <CAETOPp13H7kyLy-1VJRDOsDbOh8A1MWZDxw1xHUBsxTRtMfc7g@mail.gmail.com> <20140728054217.AC1A0580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140728055336.GJ50802@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAETOPp3hJB8Gj%2BPMj3N951krnNqCYiAOY-cPHxMCBy1CQXWJaQ@mail.gmail.com> <A1E63A7A-BB38-4CC3-B5EC-B251BE990572@mail.turbofuzz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 28, 2014 9:49 PM, "Jordan Hubbard" <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> wrote: > > > It would be great if libyaml and libucl would converge, but instead it'= s > > likely that the number of solutions trying to solve the same problem will > > continue to proliferate, and we are stuck with more and more configuration > > file formats :-( > > I=E2=80=99m a huge fan of unified data formats; Apple picked XML and the = plist DTD a long time ago, a decision which has worked rather nicely in practice, but I=E2=80=99m more in love with the unification that produced than I am i= n love with XML itself. That said, it seems like this late push for YAML is a similar case for divergence just because=E2=80=A6erm=E2=80=A6 you don=E2=80= =99t like JSON? It seems like libucl has basically backed JSON with the addition of a little syntactic sugar, so what=E2=80=99s wrong with that? In general, as a tool, JSON is more limited/less expressive than YAML. Now YAGNI may apply here but I personally am not sure so I'm tempted to opt for the more flexible tool because of that. I could be wrong and maybe JSON is all that's ever needed. > Is there some reason JSON is not sufficient? I think that=E2=80=99s a be= tter question to ask, since the conversation otherwise quickly tends to sound a little like =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99ll accept any single unified format as long = as it=E2=80=99s the specific one I like!=E2=80=9D :) I think the greater good argument would = suggest just picking one that=E2=80=99s expressive enough (roll a pair of dice), pu= t on your bikeshed-proof sunglasses, and proceed. That's a good point, and one I don't really disagree with. The main goal here is to get us machine parsable output. But part of me is sad because it's a lost opportunity to promote the more flexible format. One of the reasons JSON is so popular is the network effect, I think (it's popular because it's popular). Oh well. :) Jos > > - Jordan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAETOPp0c1xfMj1vDvQRSoV3ec-LdJmyT9AFH02iziN0yuY1D-A>