From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80b3e504140e89fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-20 07:33:28 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Config_Files proposal
Date: 20 Jun 2002 10:19:16 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <u1yb2uj6j.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
References: <uwuswy0qr.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <4519e058.0206190708.2ef205e4@posting.google.com>
 <aeqcl6$sgg$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1024583216 12195 128.183.220.71 (20 Jun 2002
 14:26:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2002 14:26:56 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26487
Date: 2002-06-20T14:26:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> XML is significantly better than some of the other formats suggested here
> for one factor: Other tools will be able to make use of it. If it comes to
> displaying an initialization file or using the data in any other way, you
> gain the ability to make them work in entirely new contexts without having
> to do some form of data conversion.

True.

> All other things being equal, gaining an XML parser in the process
> would be A Good Thing. 

Yes, but I think you'll agree that all other things are not equal
today. And since I am _not_ proposing to write an XML parser, but only
to reuse an existing one, we are not "gaining" anything; those parsers
are already there.

> Imagine if one day when everything is sunshine and rainbows and
> pastel unicorns and Ada has some kind of standard means of
> displaying web page stuff, your initialization file XML data slides
> right in there. 

XML is not "web page stuff"; Netscape doesn't know how to display it.
It has to be processed into HTML first (unless I am really missing
something). It's just as easy to process a Config_File into HTML. If
the Config_File standard catches on, it would be reasonable to define
and implement a standard translation to XML and HTML and whatever else
comes along.

> Imagine that once the tools are there to handle XML on input and
> output how many other things might be built on top of Grace that
> could leverage this capability.

Yes, that would be nice. But it is way outside the scope of the
Config_File mandate.

Even if we had better XML tools in Grace today, I think I would not
use XML for Config_Files. It just doesn't meet the requirements;
hand-editing is important, and too hard in XML.

> IOW, use this as an excuse to build an XML DOM & SAX. (I'd like to
> see an OO implementation of this using tagged records and closely
> following the W3C DOM model, despite the very nice non-OO
> implementation done by XML/Ada.)

I don't think we need an excuse for that :).

-- 
-- Stephe