Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Steve Howell showell30 at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 5 17:01:12 CET 2010

On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em... at 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?

More information about the Python-list mailing list