Re: Use of XML for config files

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> the idea behind XML is that you don't have to write tags yourself.

If we take that literally, then we should not use XML for config
files. It is a requirement that config files be editable by "any old
text editor".

However, I think a sufficiently small subset of XML is ok. I'll be
posting a complete example Real Soon Now :).

> <snip> 
> An annotated typed tree is different from a flat anything-list.
> I think it depends on the application whether a list of a few
> settings like in environment variables is sufficient or not.

Yes, it does depend on the application. But for config files, we need
to find the right compromise.

The Win32 registry or Gnome gconf provide a fully annotated typed
tree. So I think config files don't need to. 

> Should the decision between very simple Key(i) = value(i) and a
> grammar driven externally checked configuration be frozen in the
> API?

No, that choice should be transparent to the Config Files API. But we
do need a Config Files file format standard, so any implementation can
read any Config File.

-- 
-- Stephe