From: jbritt@...
Date: 2003-03-01T02:02:08+09:00
Subject: Re: XmlConfigFile usage

> So this isn't a very good situation to be in: if I write (say) Ruby code to
> implement the first case, and then I need to import the XML into (say) Perl,
> I will have to rewrite everything from scratch in Perl, save the actual
> low-level parsing of the XML.
>

...

>
> With YAML, it's defined for you: and therefore, it will interoperate with
> other YAML implementations, in the sense that a hash created on machine A
> will be turned into the same hash on machine B. It also defines ways of
> encoding common scalar data types, graph structures where the same object
> appears at several points, user-defined types, and so forth.

True.  Which suggest one should consider starting out with an XML format known to interoperate.
It's no different than if I invent my own CVS++ syntax to format my data, then try to pass it to a Perl app that expects YAML.

The comparisons between XML and YAML miss the mark because one is a general syntax specification for creating markup languages, and
the other is a specific markup language format.  It makes more sense, perhaps, to compare YAML with (X)HTML, or SOAP/XML-RPC
serialization, or RD, ot RDoc, or some other format that has predefined semantics.

James

>
> Regards,
>
> Brian.
>
>
>