Content deleted Content added
→HJSON: A useful compromise between JSON and YAML: Kinder wording |
→HJSON: A useful compromise between JSON and YAML: better wording |
||
Line 171:
::HJSON doesn’t have enough stuff in books or magazines to make a full article, but I think we can add a sentence mentioning it to the [[JSON]] article because of {{cite book|last1=Edelman|first1=Jason|last2=Lowe|first2=Scott|last3=Oswalt|first3=Matt|title=Network Programmability and Automation|publisher=[[O'Reilly Media]]|quote=for data representation you can pick one of the following: YAML, YAMLEX, JSON, JSON5, HJSON, or even pure Python}} [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 20:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I didn't claim that Hjson is a "user interface format", I claimed it is a "user interface", period. Just see the title of hjson.org, which states "Hjson, a user interface for JSON". The comparison to YAML is flawed, since YAML is a data-serialization format, while Hjson doesn't even claim to be one. Likening Hjson to the programming language Python isn't helping the case. Shall we include Python in the list as well? I have yet to see anything that makes Hjson noteworthy in either this article or the JSON article. It's great that you have found a UI to JSON that you like, but Wikipedia is not a [[WP:LINKFARM|linkfarm]]. [[Special:Contributions/185.213.154.172|185.213.154.172]] ([[User talk:185.213.154.172|talk]]) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::I agree that we shouldn’t make Wikipedia a link farm, but I also feel we should not completely ignore useful reliably sourced information. HJSON (and JSON5) are both mentioned in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and mentioning them in the [[JSON]] article has [[WP:NNC|a much lower bar of entry than a standalone Wikipedia article]]; as per the [[WP:LINKFARM]] concerns, I did not hotlink to the web pages
| |||