> > Well, for me personally, .ini style config files still win over XML > > every day. And I now have significant experience with both here at > > ESI. > > OK. Do realize that plists are basically .ini style just expressed in XML:: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" > "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> > <plist version="1.0"> > <dict> > <key>Section</key> > <dict> > <key>key</key> > <string>value</string> > <key>key2</key> > <string>value2</string> > </dict> > </dict> > </plist> > > I am not thinking of anything fancy or beyond something like this; .ini files > expressed in XML. Just thinking that XML might be nice since all of those poor > souls who don't use Python have easy access to an XML parser but not > necessarily a .ini file parser. This reveals IMO a big mistake in thinking about configuration files. The most important user of a config file is not the programmer who has to get data out of it; the most important user is the user who has to edit the config file. The outrageous verbosity of XML makes the above example a complete usability liability. Now, if you're talking about config files that represent options that the user edits in a convenient application-specific options dialog, that's a different story; I think XML is well-suited for that; but I'm talking about the classic configuration file pattern where you use your favorite flat-file text editor to edit the options file. In that situation, using XML is insane. > Is this worth working on now or wait until Py3k? I see no advantage in waiting until Py3K; this is not a language issue and there is no problem with having several library modules (as long as it's clear which one is deprecated). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4