Bob La Quey wrote: > >Stewart Stremler wrote: > > > >> Most scripting languages just execute configuration files, so they've > >> basically got their own validating parser built-in. > > > >Yup. But they all differ, slightly. > > They all differ slightly and therein lies the problem. > XML may be bloated. But is far better standardized than > any of (note several subtly different) examples given.
The reason is there are many implementations of a very simple KEY VALUE parser. Some more robust than others. Since it is for a _configuration_ file, that is fine as it is specfic to the application, anyway. XML, on the other hand, is too complex to code and throw away. You need a centralised library. Let's see how many implementations I can find relatively quickly... cl-s-xml - simple Common Lisp XML parser libacexml5.4.7c2a - ACE SAX based XML parsing library libdancer-xml0 - simplistic and non-comformant xml parser libicexml31 - ZeroC Ice for C++ XML parser library librexml-ruby - pure Ruby non-validating XML parser suppor libwbxml2-0 - WBXML parsing and encoding library libxml-feed-perl - Syndication feed parser and auto-discovery libxml-light-ocaml-dev - mininal XML parser and printer for OCaml libxml-parser-perl - Perl module for parsing XML files pike-public.parser.xml2 - libxml2-based XML parser module for Pike r-cran-xml - GNU R package for XML parsing and generati tclxml - Tcl library for XML parsing I do not want to place any bets that they all parse identically. Especially the ones that say ``non-conformant'' or ``non-validating'' or the like. I do not want to place any bets that any two parse identically. -john PS: I found more than just that sample. -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
