On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote: > > Your argument is bogus. You can't claim that every XML file format leads > > to unreadable files. Now, if you have a good *technical* reasons why we > > shouldn't use XML - I would love to hear them. > > Looks like you dont understand. > > "technical reasons" are NOT the only reasons that should be considered when > evaluating config file formats. > Config files are (at least on UNIX systems) generally targetted at > users being able to edit them. by hand.
Yes, XML file format is a perfect canidate for being editing by hand. > *users*, not developers. We plan on making a GUI ala "like what is done with many of the graphics drivers on windows" to be able to tweak and modify the config file as needed. In the end, the common user would use this most likely. Only power users would use the configuration files. > Sure, you could design a schema/dtd/whathaveyou in XML that would be more > readable.... and it would probably end up looking a lot like the XF86Config > file format. > Or one of the other well known config file formats. Okay, so then your argument kinda goes away now doesn't it? I mean, if we can make an xml file look like the standard XF86Config and if the XF86Config is fine with you then ... well ... your non-technical argument falls apart at the seems. > If you want to get experience/resume padding doing XML coding, please do it > elsewhere. Please don't make this a personal attack. Public forums are not an appropriate place for such things while we are trying to be constructive. > Preferably in an area that XML was designed for: in exchanging > data between programs and OTHER programs, not between humans and programs. Simplify: GUI configuration tool (program) <--> Driver (program) > > Couple of good reasons to use XML: > > > > *) Parser with validation capabilites already written. > > *) More and more utilities are using it ... fontconfig for example. > > *) bindings for all major languages. > > *) A copy of libxml already exists in the tree if a person doesn't already > > have it. > > *) Extensible. > > *) It can be edited with any text editor. > > C code can be edited with any text editor, too. But the percentage > of DRI users that can usefully DO that, is a very small number, comparative > to the overall number of users. Hence the GUI ... I think I have covered all the arguments that needed to be addressed. Seriously, if you a technical reason why ... I would love to hear it. -- //========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || \\========================================================// ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
