3 ms·

I don't think YAML is going anywhere, largely because it was the first format to prioritize readability and conciseness, and has used that advantage to achieve

by ak217 6y ago

I don't think YAML is going anywhere, largely because it was the first format to prioritize readability and conciseness, and has used that advantage to achieve critical mass. It's far more productive to push for incremental changes to the YAML spec (or even a fork of it) to make it more sane and better defined. Things like a StrictYAML subset mode for parsers in other popular languages.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It's far more productive to push for incremental changes to the YAML spec The problems this article raises and strictyaml purports to address were addressed in YAML 1.2, already supported in python via ruamel.yaml; YAML 1.2 addresses much of this in the Core schema which is the closest successor to the default behavior of earlier spec versions, and does so more completely in the support for schemas more generally, which define both the supported “built-in" tags (roughly, types) and how they are matched from the low-level representation which consists only of strings, sequences, and maps (which, incidentally, are the only three tags of the “Failsafe” schema; there’s also a “JSON” Schema between Failsafe and Core, which has tags corresponding to the types supported by JSON.