On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:58:35PM +0900, Ola Bini wrote:
> Aaron Patterson wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:50:02AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> >>2009/11/12 5:47, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> >>>On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Aaron Patterson
> >>><aaron / tenderlovemaking.com>  wrote:
> >>>>Yes, it definitely needs more documentation.  It passes *most* of the
> >>>>current Syck tests, although syck supports some syntax that isn't
> >>>>allowed by the YAML spec.
> >>>Do the Syck tests cover all the pluggable emitter stuff too? We were
> >>>never able to be totally compatible with Syck's API until Ola did a
> >>>straight-up port of Syck for JRuby 1.4. The emitter stuff was the
> >>>hardest, and it's used inside Rails in various places so we didn't
> >>>really have a choice to not support it.
> >>Yes, compatibility is very important.
> >>But we gave up maintaining syck; so there are not so many options.
> >>If someone contribute tests for syck, it will help Aaron's new impl
> >>unless Aaron give up compatibility.
> >
> >I do not plan to give up compatibility, except where Syck deviates from
> >the YAML spec.
> >
> 
> Which version of the spec are you planning to cover?

YAML 1.1.  Since that is the spec libyaml follows.  ;-)

> And as you might know, you will find that Syck is _very_
> incompatible towards YAML in many, many places - and there are lots
> of production apps that rely on those behaviors.

Which incompatibilities, specifically? (Maybe we should take this to
another list)  The only incompatibilities I've found so far seem to be
of little consequence.  But like I said, the tests are sparse.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/