From: Richard Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2003-03-19T22:54:23+09:00
Subject: Re: XML too hard (YAML opportunity?)

I fully agree...and I apologize for misrepresentation.  I was thinking 
more of usage here.  yaml4r is a single file that gives me much of what 
I want in managing configuration data.  It can be used for more than 
that, but that is what I use it for most often. It lacks many things of 
XML++ including cross-language libraries.  The original question was 
one of XML and YAML.  I inferred from the initial posts that the 
question was w/plain XML vs. YAML.  I just think that in common usage, 
XML formats are discussed, designed...parsers + emitters are written 
and then used.  I skip these steps for YAML.  I just write Ruby objects 
and they can be simply marshall/unmashalled in a readable format.  Oh, 
and editability by hand of complex YAML is not that bad.  Typically you 
are changing values and they are easy to find and edit in a YAML file.

Also, I must say that I have recently been doing A LOT of XML and Ruby 
work.  Its because of Ruby's ease of use both as a language and an XML 
processor (thanks Sean for REXML) that I was able to "win" against both 
Java and Python in a current (internal) project.

I am not trying to advocate for YAML to replace XML, but YAML is really 
nice to use in many circumstances.  Like they say, if you only have a 
hammer, everything looks like a nail.  That is how many people approach 
XML and (like programming languages) its better to have many tools in 
the toolbox than just a hammer ;-)

-rich

PS.  NaHi...your SOAP/WSDL libraries are <AMAZING/> and I am looking to 
do wonderful things with them...so thank you for all your work.  I am a 
true believer that scripting languages and Web Services are a perfect 
match for each other.

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 06:38  AM, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

> It's to be expected that yamlrb(YAML + Ruby language mapping)
> can do more without extentions.  As Brian stated, we should
> not compare (plain) XML vs YAML.