Philip Brown wrote:
Perhaps it would be better if there was an example of the type of configuration that would be expressed in the putative configuration file.On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:18:43PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:If anyone has serious objections to XML, please let us know (mail to dri-devel will suffice ;-).I object. Using xml inevitably leads to files that are completely human-unreadable, except perhaps to the original developers. Please stick with ye olde standard XF86Config type format. It could be better, but it is CERTAINLY better than XML.
Why would an XFree86 (which I don't much like) or a simple
[blah]
foo=bar
bb={sheep, cows, emus}
type format be insufficient?
-d
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
