On 3/19/07, Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007, at 13:03, Adrian Howard wrote: > Nope. It's to add some simple YAML-ish output in places to help > clarify things. It's also a very small subset of YAML rather than > the full YAML spec. > See <http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/TAP_diagnostic_syntax> Why not JSON? http://www.json.org
+1
It's a) Already implemented in a large number of libraries on a large number of programming languages. b) Has wider take up than YAML, or at least more mindshare in the world, and when you're pushing a standard, mindshare is what you want. c) Doesn't require a separate standard (where, defining a subset of YAML does. It's probably not enough to just go with simple examples) d) Still human readable and computer readable.
might i add, e) it's *incredibly easy* both to produce, and to parse f) YAML is overkill, if JSON meets the requirements. g) it works on parrot already (selfish, i know) ~jerry
