On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:26:28AM -0400, Joshua Boyd wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:08:25PM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote: > > XML is far too heavy, agreed, and it's signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal. > > I think that using a Lisp (or Lispy-looking) format would be extensible, > > easy to parse, and make the most people happy. > > Allow me to toss out JSON. It is about as light weight as using S-EXP, > but politically it isn't tied down by references to Lisp. Plus, since > it has become fairly popular, there are good readers/writers for most > languages. > > The format is defined at: http://www.json.org/ > > Basically you are allowed strings, numbers, arrays, and "object", which > would be called a map, an associative array, a dictionary, or something > else along those lines anywhere else. >
The problem I have with JSON (and to some extent, Lisp) is that it is not self-documenting. You can't open a JSON document and immediately see what everything is and what it does; it just looks like gibberish and brackets. Also, it doesn't require a consistent newline scheme. Andrew _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user