On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:37:06PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote: > > 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.
I guess I should have specified that the "you" in that sentance was meant as a collective noun, not neccessarily to one person alone. I am trying to point out that none of "XML is cool", "XML is a hot trend right now" "I havent had as much XML experience as I'd like" are valid reasons for selecting XML as the basis for a file format. Nor is "well, there's an xml library, why dont we use it?" There are embedded scheme/java/python/perl libraries too. The argument doesnt make any more sense for those . On the other hand, "DRI is meant to integrate with XFree86. XFree86 has a standard configuration file format. We should follow the 'principle of least surprise', and use the same format they are used to for X11 configuration" DOES seem to make a good deal of sense, when considering the needs of users as more important than the needs of developers. > > 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) There are GUI tools for Xfree configuration too, and they have managed to get along fine without using XML. If you want a "Library" for config file parsing, cant you just use whatever the x server itself uses? ------------------------------------------------------- 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
