On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Philip Brown wrote: > > If you think about it, what *really* matters is the bytes inside DRI. > > The XF86Config syntax is just sugar to make it easy to get the right > > values in there for people handy a text editor. An XML syntax is just > > different kind of sugar which makes it *trivial* to write tools for people > > handy with a mouse. Not to mention facilitating features like preventing > > invalid configurations from being saved, and other stuff that comes > > essentially free with XML. > > > The "writing tools" bit is handled already, given the existence of > the xf86 config library. So "XML makes it easier to write tools" is an > invalid argument.
In general, it *does* make it easier, because you don't have to learn a new library/API every time you want to write a configurator. > Not to mention that "people handy with a mouse", and not code, should > not be writing tools for this stuff in the first place! By "people handy with a mouse" I meant the end-users, not the coders. :) > And the "preventing invalid configurations" stuff is not "free". As I > understand it, you have to write lengthy XML stuff to set rules, etc, > etc. Good point there, you do have to backfill the rules, but at least the technique is standardized if you want to do it. I was thinking/worrying more about the hand-editing model, which the original poster was trying to make sure didn't go away. Anyway, it looks like Ian Romanick and others are already tossing bits of XML back and forth... -Jamie ------------------------------------------------------- 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
