> <hint> > It doesn't seem to be very important to others or else there > would actually be some traffic on this list ... </>
I haven't followed this thread that closely, but isn't this debate about the choice between a less complicated interface (graph command syntax) and a more flexible interface (that allows complete control/customization of the graphs)? Now maybe an xml interface could provide both, but backwards compatibility should be preserved. Maybe there could be a new function "graphxml" that takes the graph specs as xml, while the old function continues to act as currently advertised. Jake Jake Brutlag Network Analyst TV Services -- Network Operations Microsoft MSN -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi
