Am Son, 2001-10-07 um 16.50 schrieb 1002466228:
> our parser isn't homebrewn and is much better supported by glib than XML
> is. s-expressions are in my opinion easier to read and write for humans
Knowing that you're an EMACS user I definitely think this statement
could be true. :) I for one keep the right to think different(TM),
though.
> than XML syntax which was never designed to be edited by hand.
No, XML was designed to be parsed, written and validated by machines;
that's true. However SGML was not, it was meant to be written by humans
to keep structure in documents and since SGML is the father of XML this
still remains true.
> From the
> users point of view, would you really prefer a XML format for gimprc over
> the existing one? I certainly wouldn't.
gimprc is not really the issue here, though I wouldn't it being an XML
file. Let's talk about pluginrc instead. Using XML for gimprc would be
more a consistency issue.
> The GMarkup parser in glib-2.0 is a simple SAX-like parser interface,
I know.
> while libxml offers an alternative DOM interface.
The question is what is better for this purpose. DOM would be perfect
for config files though using SAX wouldn't be much of a problem either.
> For simple purposes
> we can definitely get away without libxml, more sophisticated XML
> handling will certainly require it.
Agreed.
> I don't have strong feelings against
> depending on libxml2 however it it becomes necessary.
Sorry?
--
Servus,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
