Am Dienstag, 28. Januar 2003 08:22 schrieb D. Hageman: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote: > > I am trying to point out that none of
[-] > > On the other hand, > > "DRI is meant to integrate with XFree86. XFree86 has a standard > > configuration file format. We should follow the > > 'principle of least surprise', and use the same format they are used > > to for X11 configuration" > > > > DOES seem to make a good deal of sense, when considering the needs of > > users as more important than the needs of developers. > > Two things: > > 1) Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth. If the users really want > something in a certain way are more the happy to do it. > > 2) The XF86Config file format does what it does very well. It isn't > necessarily what we are looking for. It also isn't exactly a library that > one can just use. It is a very custom built parser for a very specific > purpose. We don't need to re-invent the wheel here. Make the "file format" as simple as possible. Not only for the "users" but think about "remote" editing/managing even if it is meant as a "local" config file. This was good "Unix thinking" for ages. So what are the "technical" advantages of XML in this case? Peace, Dieter -- Dieter Nützel Graduate Student, Computer Science University of Hamburg Department of Computer Science @home: Dieter.Nuetzel at hamburg.de (replace at with @) ------------------------------------------------------- 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