I would prefer something a little more artistic, something that would let us compose a config that rolls off the tongue. How about this?
http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/ "According to the Authors, the language has the expressiveness of BASIC and the user friendliness of assembly language." - Rupert On 1/29/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
