There's no need to be rude about it. Your first statement would have sufficed to make your point.
Anyway, I didn't say that I don't use it because of the length of the spec. I said I don't use it because it's orders of magnitude more complex than JSON and I used the spec as an example of that. A bigger spec means a bigger parser and a higher probability that other people will not limit themselves to the parts that "you generally use".
To that, I added that JSON is everywhere already and YAML isn't. My point about the name seems a little silly, but my intuition has served me well over the years.
To be a 'compliant' parser, you generally have to implement the whole spec. The bigger the spec, the more complicated the parser. The less stuff from the spec you use, the less gets tested. What's silly is picking a 'standard' and thinking because you only use a little bit, you're safe.
Anyway, I didn't say that I don't use it because of the length of the spec. I said I don't use it because it's orders of magnitude more complex than JSON and I used the spec as an example of that. A bigger spec means a bigger parser and a higher probability that other people will not limit themselves to the parts that "you generally use".
To that, I added that JSON is everywhere already and YAML isn't. My point about the name seems a little silly, but my intuition has served me well over the years.