configuration files

[James Frazer]

Right, using XML for the sake of using it a waste of time.  However, as 
mentioned before I think one could more easily create frontends to XML 
configs than currently possible with regular text config-files.

Your example of course demonstrates the uselessness of using something 
without cause.  But it also somewhat undermines the strengths of XML 
that are applicable.

Configuration files DO contain data.  And portability among 
configuration data is somewhat important -- for example -- when 
upgrading your OS -- if the format of the config files change in any way 
-- compatibility with your old config files is broken.  I've had this 
happen to me before -- and often there really isn't much indication as 
to what the heck has changed.  This creates a sticky situation. 
Validation by a new schema would reveal which old config files need 
updating and which do not (mostly).

Importing settings from other sorces (a different server) is another 
example where it might be beneficial.

--James

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

<snip>

XML is for ensuring data portability.  A configuration file, in plain
text, does not even qualify for this.
Just using XML to write a configuration file in without using anything
to do validation or schema control on top of it is a waste of a
perfectly well-working system into something which just has the latest
buzzword attached to it.
I still need to see the advantage of doing:

mouse_enable="YES"

over:

<mouse enable="yes"/>