Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

[Paul Rubin]

mk <mrkafk 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.

> 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.

> http://myarch.com/why-xml-is-bad-for-humans
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-sbxml.html

You might like this one too:

  http://www.schnada.de/grapt/eriknaggum-xmlrant.html
>
> I also have to maintain a few applications that internally use XML as
> data format: while they are tolerable, they still leave smth to be
> desired, as those applications are really slow for larger datasets,

I thought we were talking about configuration files, not "larger datasets".

> There are demonstrable benefits to this too: I for one am happy that
> ReST is available for me and I don't have to learn a behemoth such as
> DocBook to write documentation.

DocBook is so far off my radar I'd have never thought of it.  I just now
learned that it's not Windows-only.  There is already POD, Pydoc,
Texinfo, a billion or so flavors of wiki markup, vanilla LaTeX, and most
straightforwardly of all, plain old ascii.  ReST was another solution in
search of a problem.