bkml wrote:
> One is to have formalised syntax and semantics which INI doesn't.  
> There are as many definitions out there for INI as there are  
> implementations of it.
> 
> Another objective is to be able to structure the configuration data,  
> such as nesting sections for example. INI doesn't meet this objective  
> either.

I'm all for using XML, and understand clearly its advantages over 
ini-style. I've used XML in development projects for about the last 5 or 
6 years. I think it sometimes gets a bad rap by people who don't really 
understand by what is meant by representing a "complex but arbitrary 
object". This often leads to to debates about whether we are simply 
using XML for XML's sake. I do however believe that ini-style is rapidly 
coming to the end of its useful life for projects such as this.

> It may come as a surprise to you, but Roman characters, or Romaji as  
> they are called over here, are part of Japanese daily life and  
> culture. They are even part of the Japanese JIS character set.

It comes as no surprise to me at all - I studied Japanese language for 
four years. I speak a moderate amount of Russian, and fairly fluent 
German. So that's four languages and five alphabets I have experience 
with. I've worked as an IT manager in Russia - I know all too well the 
hurdles of managing Unicode/code pages, on a mixture of FreeBSD, Linux 
and Windows platforms.

> In any event, I didn't say that "CC-Language" is the ideal format for  
> this. All I am saying is that it should be discoverable even for  
> somebody who is unfamiliar with the ISO codes.

Optional text description next to the ISO code, or native language 
representation via a GUI.

> Yet, again, I didn't say we should do this. I said that the framework  
> supports Unicode and that we have the option to use Unicode if we  
> wanted to.

The framework may support Unicode, but I'm fairly sure OpenPBX as a 
whole is a long way from being Unicode-safe.

> All parameters are optional. That's one of the nice things about the  
> framework. It won't stop parsing if some parameter isn't there and it  
> won't stop parsing if a parameter is there that your software doesn't  
> actually use.

One of the nice things about open standards is that everybody can have 
their own.

_______________________________________________
Openpbx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev

Reply via email to