> my only concrete reason for preferring xml, other than that
> it "feels" right ;), is that you get much better error
> handling right out of the box, especially when you turn on
> validation. that's something that would have to be
> implemented as part of a perl-based config file processor.
Can't you just do something like a require() wrapped in an eval{}?
I'm not against an XML config, although I've always been happy with perl
config files in the past. (I still want to see the layered config idea that
was discussed earlier.) It may be that a CGI implementation would need to
cache the data with Storable and stat the XML files to see if they've
changed.
- Perrin
