From: why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2002-10-29T00:58:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby.bah! (was Re: XMLParser, NQXML... and also RAA.succ)

On Monday 28 October 2002 12:32 am,  JamesBritt wrote:
> Your comments suggest YAML can easily step for XML, though that previous
> YAML spec link suggests potentially significant structural/conceptual
> differences between the two.  

YAML cannot step for XML.  The two are completely different.  When it comes to 
interleaved content and markup, YAML cannot tread water.  Certainly use XML 
in cases requiring such.

Let's ask the inverse question: Can XML easily step for YAML?  XML is squeezed 
into many case where I believe it doesn't suit as well.  Configuration files, 
messaging, data serialization.  YAML is engineered for these cases.

> Plus, there is a growing (albeit increasingly
> complex) constellation of XML-derived specs and tools. Does YAML, for
> example, have anything similar to XSLT or a schema language/validation
> process?

Well, it's all in progress.  Sure, YAML is quite young.  Here's what I can 
tell you:

  - CYATL is YAML's transformation language.  Brian Ingerson (Inline.pm) and 
Steve Howell (PyYaml) are developing this.  I imagine that it will be a year 
or so before there is a stable product (depending on demand, of course).
  - We are working a schema language.  We're looking at several possible 
angles:
     - A reworking of RELAX-NG:
       - http://wiki.yaml.org/yamlwiki/YamlRelaxExampleOne
     - A custom schema:
       - http://wiki.yaml.org/yamlwiki/OkayTypeSchema
       - http://wiki.yaml.org/yamlwiki/YaCleanSchemeProposal

The !okay/schema is currently functional.  It comes with YAML.rb.

_why