Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

[Paul Rubin]

Steve Howell <showell30 at yahoo.com> writes:
>> Modify the JSON standard so that "JSON 2.0" allows comments.
>
> If you don't control the JSON standard, providing a compelling
> alternative to JSON might be the best way to force JSON to accomodate
> a wider audience. 

Ehh, either the JSON standardizers care about this issue or else they
don't.  JSON (as currently defined) is a machine-to-machine
serialization format and just isn't that good a choice for handwritten
files.  Adding a comment specification is a small perturbation that
might be accepted into the standard, but a big departure like RSON is a
whole nother creature.

> How many hundreds of thousands of people have had to deal with XML
> without receiving its benefits?  Do well-established standards get an
> exemption from the rule that software is not allowed to annoy non-
> willing users of it?

We already have to deal with XML.  So using XML for config files doesn't
require anyone to deal with any lousy formats that they didn't have to
deal with before.  So the basic answer to your question about
well-established standards is yes: one annoying but standardized format
is better than multiple annoying unstandardized ones.