Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steve Howell showell30 at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 5 00:12:17 EST 2010


On Mar 4, 12:52 am, Paul Rubin <no.em... at nospam.invalid> wrote:
> mk <mrk... at gmail.com> writes:
> > OK, but how? How would you make up e.g. for JSON's lack of comments?
>
> 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.  It might just be that the people behind JSON
deliberately avoid comments, because it's not in the scope of the
problem they are trying to solve.  Hence another need for
alternatives.


> > OTOH, if YAML produces net benefit for as few as, say, 200 people in
> > real world, the effort to make it has been well worth it.
>
> Not if 200,000 other people have to deal with it but don't receive the
> benefit.
>

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?








More information about the Python-list mailing list