14 May
2004
14 May
'04
2:38 p.m.
Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:50:31 +0200, Alfons
Adriaensen wrote:
Exactly.
I'm having trouble figuring out Fons' original point here, though I'm
sure he has one. Simple and human readable are worthwhile goals, but
hard to reconcile.
Why rule out XML? It's one of the few widely-used language groups
that actually sorta meets both those requirements (*fairly* simple and
*somewhat* human-readable). ;-)
The other examples that readily come to mind are even worse. LISP
appeals to me as an alternative, but that's probably not what he
wants, either.
--
joq
I don't mind *IFF* the metadata file has a
simple, human readable
syntax (no XML please) that can be parsed line by line.
Human readable and line by line parsable are pretty much mutually
exclusive - try expressing any complex structure in Xresources.