Re: When did YAML become a derivative work of JSON?

On Jun 29, 1:07 am, Oren Ben-Kiki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, this is exactly right. YAML started way before JSON and isn't a
> derivative work; JSON started later and isn't a derivative of YAML, either.
> It just happened that JSON was oh-so-close to being a proper subset of YAML
> at the time, so people were complaining about the few remaining edge cases.
> We therefore went over the YAML spec and tweaked a few things to ensure YAML
> was a proper super-set of JSON. We couldn't do that without referring to
> JSON in the spec, of course.

I don't see why you HAVE to refer to JSON at all expect to say "By the
way, JSON is a valid subset of YAML." The spec certainly never
referred to JSON before JSON existed and those edge cases that needed
adjustment to make JSON a valid subset could have been adjusted
without reference, or at most a footnote.

Moreover, when its says thing like: "These styles can be viewed as the
natural extension of JSON" in the spec, it begins to feel very much
like a derivative work of JSON.

> Given JSON's popularity, this was a good move IMO. We now have a very simple
> machine-readable format (JSON) and a clear growth path for increased human
> readability and additional features (tagging, references, etc.). It also
> allows using YAML libraries to directly load JSON data.

A "growth path"? Really?

Have you stopped using YAML and now use JSON? I'm probably reading too
far between the lines, but maybe I'm catching a slight hint here in
they way you have phrased this?

Clark, Ingy, haven't header from you guys in a LONG time either. Are
you still using YAML?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2