If it ignores part of the spec, I don't think "strictyaml" is the correct name here. Instead, if it interprets everything as string, perhaps "stringyaml" would have been more accurate, though I'm sure that's not as good PR.
I'm reminded of the discussion we had a few days ago about environment variables; one problem there is that env variables are always strings, and sometimes you do want different types in your config. But clearly having the system automatically interpret whether it's a string or something else is a major source of bugs. Maybe having an explicit definition of which field should be which type would help, but then you end up with the heavy-handed XML with its XSD schema.
Or you just use JSON, which is light-weight, easy to read, but unambiguous about its types. I guess there's a good reason it's so popular.
Maybe other systems like yaml and environment variables should only ever be used for strings, and not for anything else, and I suppose replacing regular yaml with 'strictyaml' could play a role there. Or cause unending confusion, because it does violate the spec.
I'm reminded of the discussion we had a few days ago about environment variables; one problem there is that env variables are always strings, and sometimes you do want different types in your config. But clearly having the system automatically interpret whether it's a string or something else is a major source of bugs. Maybe having an explicit definition of which field should be which type would help, but then you end up with the heavy-handed XML with its XSD schema.
Or you just use JSON, which is light-weight, easy to read, but unambiguous about its types. I guess there's a good reason it's so popular.
Maybe other systems like yaml and environment variables should only ever be used for strings, and not for anything else, and I suppose replacing regular yaml with 'strictyaml' could play a role there. Or cause unending confusion, because it does violate the spec.