On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:04:19PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote: > > > > I think you misunderstand. We aren't replacing the XF86Config file here. > > This is for DRI specific driver settings with capabilities extending to > > having special options for individual programs if need be. > > > > Now if I am mistaken and you did understand ... > > > > Your argument is bogus. You can't claim that every XML file format leads > > to unreadable files. Now, if you have a good *technical* reasons why we > > shouldn't use XML - I would love to hear them. > > > > Couple of good reasons to use XML: > > > > *) Parser with validation capabilites already written. > > *) More and more utilities are using it ... fontconfig for example. > > *) bindings for all major languages. > > *) A copy of libxml already exists in the tree if a person doesn't already > > have it. > > *) Extensible. > > *) It can be edited with any text editor. > > Another disadvantage is that parsing is so damn slow.
Technical argument - sweet! The parsing is so damn slow as compared to ... what? Is this with big documents or small documents? Do adding attributes to a tag slow it down even more? If you validate it when you load it up what performance cost does it incur? The thing about an argument like this is that we need to have some actual numbers before it holds any weight. Something to compare it to ... what alternative do you propose that would be faster? Are we talking seconds, minutes, hours ... what? You get my point. -- //========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || \\========================================================// ------------------------------------------------------- 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
