Ian Molton wrote:
Of all the items on his list, I would say that these are the two that are relevant. Having easy-access for multiple languages makes it easier for other people to create programs that will use the format. I, personally, would really like to multiple, independent configuration utilities made. Survival of the fittest will see which lasts. If we select a fairly obscure format, there will likely be fewer utilities made and the quality will (in some way) suffer. People don't have infinite time, so if they have to spend it working on a config file parser, the aren't spending it on something else.On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:55:22 -0600 (CST) "D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:*) Every major programming language has some library to handle XML (say if you hacked togther a library that does the XF86Config file format ... this wouldn't be the case).
Irrelevant in this case.*) Extensible, no painting ourselves into a corner. One can easily extend the spec without having to rewrite the entire parser.Also irrelevant. the USERS will never need to do this.
Having the format be easilly extensible is relevent to us. I don't think that we will ever need to add anything to the file format beyond the initial offering, but we may. It sure would be nice if such a transition could be made as transparent as possible. If everyone that makes a configuration utility has to update their program in order for it to work at all with the updated format (taking advantage of the new elements of the format is another issue), the transition would be less transparent. This is bad for users.
-------------------------------------------------------
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
