named.conf file in xml

[Tom Jones]

Look, I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I understand the "easy human"  
readable config files. My point about MS is that they are embracing  
standards like XML to make it easier to write tools and GUI's for  
their applications. This is seen as great asset, so no matter what or  
how , all you have to do is generate the xml file based on the schema.

All I know is that, the more I've started to use XML the easier it  
gets for writing webservices to which can control a lot of my apps  
and their xml config files. This also allows me to not to need to  
learn yet another config syntax since there is no real standard for  
config files.

tom


On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:

> Bit of a non sequitur there IMHO. If your point is "humans  
> shouldn't be
> fiddling with text files directly anyway, the 'Microsoft way' is to  
> have
> some fancy GUI as the human/config interface", then if said GUI is in
> place, what does it matter whether the underlying config is a plain  
> text
> file, an XML file, or a bunch of registry keys? Or, did you have some
> other point, and if so, what is it?
>
> - Kevin
>
> Tom Jones wrote:
>
>> IMHO, It's this kind of thought and denial which allows Microsoft to
>> grow and become more widely used and accepted.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:40 AM, tsar.peter at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "XML is a standard" ???   Well, in the small context of 2005 - 2007
>>> maybe XML
>>> might qualify as "observed in the wild".   But surviving into a
>>> distand
>>> future ?
>>> Allow me to doubt.
>>>
>>> Text files on the other hand will always be readable by humans and
>>> manipulated by
>>> computers.  Don't forget that the most importent issue with any
>>> configuration file
>>> format is to be understandable by the human reader ( who has to
>>> understand it)
>>>
>>>
>>> Request not granted. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>