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 N�tzel
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
