Skip to content

Conversation

@ioggstream
Copy link

@ioggstream ioggstream commented Nov 4, 2025

This PR

  • modify the parser to accept YAML instead of JSON

Notes

I tried to bundle the editor with npm run build:editor, but it does not seem to work on my PC, while just modifying the .js works.

@davidlehn
Copy link
Member

  • Certainly need to update the source for any such change. The generated code will be overwritten.
  • This is probably a more involved discussion. The playground code doesn't yet handle the YAML-LD spec. I'm guessing you at least want the minimal feature of parsing JSON-LD that was serialized as YAML. That's fine, but I think the playground should also be able to have a mode that only accepts valid JSON. Which probably means the parsing type needs to be a choice. I'm not sure how that should all work.

@BigBlueHat
Copy link
Member

I tried to bundle the editor with npm run build:editor, but it does not seem to work on my PC, while just modifying the .js works.

@ioggstream what bundling error did you experience? I'd like to make sure that's fixed.

I like the intent of this PR! I'll see about getting it in via a pre-built code change and probably also some UX affordances to make sure it's clear one could do either.

However, I agree with @davidlehn that we also need to have an eye on any requirements/tweaks introduced to "just YAML" by the YAML-LD spec. @anatoly-scherbakov can probably advise where it may go beyond a simple YAML.parse() operation. At minimum, I think we'd need to throw errors if/when more advanced YAML features appear in the document.

Definitely something we want to see happen, though!

@anatoly-scherbakov
Copy link
Contributor

The YAML-LD spec does not forbid advanced YAML features, it just warns that documents with such features will be not round-trippable. Which is fair. Other than that users can write whatever valid YAML they wish.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants