Petr Rockai wrote: > [email protected] (Trent W. Buck) writes: >> Max Battcher <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> [...] Of course, RFC822 is full of loopholes and surprisingly hard >>> to parse in reality [...] I think I have a reasonable suggestion >>> that is easier to parse than RFC822, but carries a similar effect: >>> YAML formatted darcs comments. >> >> Can you support this claim? > > I agree with Trent in disagreeing. RFC822 is infinitely nicer for > human readers than YAML, JSON and all the other postmodern > plain-text-come-xml formats. This also means that it is the most > backwards-compatible option we have, by the virtue of rendering > nicely even if it is not rendered at all (i.e. displayed verbatim).
Let me just clarify that I'm not *necessarily* disagreeing -- I want to see the evidence before discarding it and sticking to prejudice :-) _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
