> you know, i'm not sure this is the case. most xml files are a little > more wordy than, say, the current yum config file, but i find them more > idiot-proof wrt sections, since my editor will indent xml such that i > can see easily where in the hierarchy any given element is. documenting syntax on xml files can be tricky sometimes. That's really all. and it's useful to remember that there are end-users editing this config file, not always admins/more advanced unix users. > > I tend to use xml as a data-interchange format less than a > > user-interactive format. > > you mean vice-versa, right? umm no. I mean xml is good for data-interchange with multiple programs and/or multiple formats. and not as useful for a format for users to edit. Especially when compared to the configParser format which is dead-simple. > because writing parsers is a pita no matter what? xml means i never have > to deal with slurping strings and figuring out ya config file format - i > can just throw it into an xml parser and xpath my way to the elements i > need. xml parsers are available in pretty much every widely-used > language; i personally wouldn't use anything else for a config file > unless it was a special case. but you have to determine the attribute names and the entities. Those don't magically appear. and you have to keep up with the xml parsers and their bugs. Again, I'm not against the idea, I'm just trying to make sure it makes the most sense. -sv
