On 19 Feb, Keith Packard wrote: > > Around 14 o'clock on Feb 19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I know that XML is the computer religion du jure, but as David and >> others have mentioned, the bulk of the problems are from situations >> where users are required to adjust the configuration files to deal with >> problems in the X server. > > The trouble is that many of us instinctively recoil from any wildly popular > new mechanism assuming that it's being misapplied again and again. Most of > the time, this is true. I've been considering this issue for several > years and have had many separate people suggest that perhaps XML is a good > fit for this job; please bear with me as we try to rid ourselves of our > common predjudices against anything we see in the popular press. >
My concern with XML is whether we will encourage mis-use and unrealistic expectations. I have seen completely unrealistic expectations from XML believers lead to very bad decisions. I do not want to encourage that. As a format, XML is fine. I would prefer S-expressions, but a restricted XML schema is merely S-expressions with pointy delimiters instead of curved delimiters. S-expressions are considered utterly obscure and immensely difficult while XML is intuitively obvious to the naive observer. This is not due to the difference between pointy and curved delimiters. It is the impact of herd mentality in computers. I understand S-expressions, both their strengths and weaknesses, and I think that S-expressions are a good choice for configuration files. Giving them pointy delimiters does not change that. If the schema is designed and specified so that none of the XML extensions beyond the S-expression analogues are permitted, then we can also consider using a tiny customized XML parser when we want to reduce the footprint of X. S-expression parsing can be done in a very compact form, and the equivalent restricted XML parser would be similarly compact and fast. I am using the term schema deliberately. I think that the schema is the proper route, not the DTD. The differences are small but important. Schema give you a little more rope with which to hang yourself, but the DTD already gave you more than enough to get in real trouble. Schema permit you to document the contents and constraints much more clearly than DTDs and that is important. If we stick to S-expression equivalents, the schema can be converted into a DTD automatically so that older tools that only support DTDs can be kept happy. R Horn _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
