I propose (or reiterate, if it's already been proposed) that relatively complex, and especially new configuration files be XML-compatible (that is, could be parsed by an XML-parser given a proper DTD). My reasoning is this: doing so would link the myriad of different formats used in system configuration into a single format whose only difference is in the element types used. This would greatly simplify the administrator's work (in that he/she doesn't have to learn obscure formats) and also provides for the developer a coherent means of configuration. It also provides the opportunity for a configuration tool which, given the appropriate DTD, can handle configurations for basically any application making use of XML-based configuration.
I see this as especially enabling of application integration in a way far superior to the Microsoft way. Microsoft integrates its applications by binding their code together. I see proper integration as efficient and functional communication between applications. This is made much easier with a standard format of resource storage. This is a similar idea to that of the Xresources and the resource database xrdb. However, an XML based system is far more extensible and universal. Obviously, many things don't have the complexity to require XML, and many applications can't use it due to familiarity to their own traditional configuration formats. But I would propose that any LSB type of configuration (for instance the standard package format, if any) be XML compatible, and that adquate services be made available to encourage (not mandate) application developers to make use of the system (for instance, no one will use XML configuration if a good open source XML renderer is part of the standard base). Along the thread of standardized GUIs, someone mentioned a standard configuration format for window managers/environments. Using XML, this problem will be somewhat solved, especially if a standard base DTD is given which all GUI configurations would have to follow. Environment- specific functionality can be configured using an extended version of the standard DTD. Then converting from one environment to the other while perserving configuration would only consist of extracting those elements which are standard from the configuration and applying them to the new enviroment. Obviously the environment-specific configurations would not be applied because the new environment wouldn't understand them. This way we would capture a base standard for GUI services without constricting GUI developers to that standard (allowing them to add extensions for their particular product). Because XML is relatively easy to understand and even to write DTDs for, it would take a large burden off of developers and administrators/hackers alike. Developers because they would not have to spend time defining their own formats, their own parsers, and possibly attempting to coordinate those formats with other applications' formats. Administrators/hackers because whenever they go to edit a configuration, there is a clear and universal interface to that configuration. -- ¤--------------------------------------------------------------------¤ | Aaron Gaudio mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/ | ¤--------------------------------------------------------------------¤ | "The fool finds ignorance all around him. | | The wise man finds ignorance within." | ¤--------------------------------------------------------------------¤ Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/email.shtml. By using any of my addresses, you agree to be bound by the terms therein.
