Thomas Tanner wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
> >
[snip good reasons for XML]
>
> I agree with you that a standard configuration file format is a good thing,
> but I'd rather suggest to use the GNUstep/OPENSTEP property list format.
> It's extremely easy to understand and can be read and modified
> u
Aaron wrote:
>
> 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
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Aaron wrote:
> 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).
This can do the trick. Positive thing is that by embrac
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo wrote:
> IMHO, this would be a Bad Thing(tm). It is far beyond the scope of LSB to
> specify *how* an application stores its configuration.
Read mission statement:"The goal of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) is to
develop and promote a set of standards tha
IMHO, this would be a Bad Thing(tm). It is far beyond the scope of LSB to
specify *how* an application stores its configuration. It may be
acceptable to specify *where* an application stores its configuration,
though. I.e. daemons with one config file store it in /etc, daemons with
multiple config
5 matches
Mail list logo
