On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Michael Michael wrote:

> after 1990... Note these arguments are the standard
> anti-xml arguments given by most idots..

Okay, I will assume that you are not a troll just so I can put forth some
of the non-standard arguments:

1) Versioning

XML *still* doesn't have any good mechanisms for dealing with
forward-compatibility and backward-compatibility.  ie. reading a config
file for version 10.4 on version 10.1.  The closest you get is to use DOM
to suck the whole tree in and then query the existing elements tree only
when you need something.  However, this doesn't address approximations to
elements, obsoleted elements, etc.  If you have a solution, I'm all ears
and you have a reasonably compelling argument for adopting XML.  And not
just for XFree86.  I use XML for data interchange in engineering and would
*love* to hear a solution to this.

2) Proliferation of config files

We already have two incompatible config file types.  One for XFree86 v.3
and one for XFree86 v.4.  This introduces a third type and doesn't really
obsolete the v.4 config file.  So which one gets priority?  This can be
handled by fiat, but there will be lots of confusion in users.

3) Schema, DTD, or raw XML?

And which of these choices should be used for the config file?  DTD's are
supposedly supplanted by schemas, but schema knowledge and handling hasn't
proliferated very well yet and even DTD handling is sketchy (most parsers
are non-validating).  So, you probably wind up with dumb raw XML since
it's the lowest common denominator.  Raw XML has very little advantage
over the config file as it stands, and it has a big disadvantage in that
all the tools written to deal with the current config format have to be
rewritten.

4) External dependency

Do you want the possibility of killing your X server when you upgrade your
libXML?  That's what this kind of linkage implies.  X is a pretty
primitive/low-level/primary part of most OS's.  xml is fairly high-level
and normally optional.  Creating that kind of dependency is not a great
idea.

The main issue here is that the XFree86 config has simple syntax.  The
most complicated bits are not the syntax, but creating the content.
Creating a modeline, setting up multiple displays, activating DRI, etc.
are going to be the same level of pain whether the config file stays as it
is or whether it moves to XML.

And, as a side note, calling people idiots (misspelled even) rarely helps
one's case.

-a


_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert

Reply via email to