On mer, 2004-08-04 at 04:42 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > It is not binary. It is editable in case of problem, but you have > to understand the data being stored and why it's that way. Sorry > to me this is still fullfilling the initial goal. This is escaping > not binarization, the rule is simple. > Would you suggest that only French text be stored as gconf strings > because that's the only ones users would be able to understand and fix ? > No this doesn't make sense. Same argument in this case, if you're minimally > fluent in XML then why it's escaped and how to fix it if needed is > possible. The correct analogy would be to use french key name/values in config files and yes I *would* expect users to be incensed because I choose to use nonsensical (for them) values in a config files. (well french is not a perfect example since it's a western european language - russian would be a better one). Conf files are not supposed to be computer-friendly only. Conf files are exposed to the user/admin and need the same love as the UI for example. (and BTW this is not an attack on XML - I breathe XML these days. But there are lots of ways to use XML in conf files that do not make human intervention as difficult as here. Rule one being avoiding entities like the plague they are. Being good computer XML is not sufficient here.) I do not consider all the efforts exim, postfix... spent on replacing sendmail configuration hell by something more human-friendly wasted. I'm sure lots of people can read sendmail files in the text. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
