Or we could use LISP like emacs, for the ultimate in configurability
On 29/01/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guys WE ARE PART OF APACHE! Can we do what the rest of the Apache family does for configuration, and not invent our own just for the sake of personal preference. No one likes XML; but at the same time I have *never* seen a config file in YAML syntax! Sysadmins are used to Apache's HTTPD.CONF file format, and XML. So long as we don't get into name space sillyness, it won't look too offensive. Let's not alienate all of potential our users at once ;-) Pretty please with sugar John On 29/01/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -1 YAML +1 XML > > Why throw away such a well established standard to use something > experimental? Especially given that there are so many libraries already > based around XML. > > Is XML really so hard to write by hand? Sorry for having a negative > opinion, but this just seems like using something different for the sake of > it, without any really compeling reason to do so. > > Rupert > > On 1/26/07, Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:44 -0500, Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote: > > > While I like flexibility, I think one or the other (yaml or xml) is > > > better. I've never been > > > a fan of XML configuration files, I've found that simple property > > > value files were > > > sufficient for most things, but YAML seems to give a simple file format > > that is > > > easy to both read and edit. > > > > > > +1 YAML > > > -1 XML > > > > > > > I'm with you all the way. My point was only that if we go with a YAML > > solution it won't *prevent* us from accommodating an XML presentation > > if/when we ever need to - hopefully we won't ;) We should definitely > > start with YAML. > > > > Cheers, > > Alan. > > > > > > > > > >
