>I believe in KISS and the good old unix philosofy where all config files
>are plain text. It allows easy use of text-oriented tools like grep, sed,
>awk etc. It makes the files easy to read and write manually. XML prevents that.

I agree with the "plaintext" idea 101% ...I only went the XML route, as it
seemed with <source> and </source> (etc) you are half way there already -
already with the sed and grep problems you list.

>Now, can we please put focus back on the actual contents of the file and
>how we should use them in the future?

To draw from my previous post: "Even if all the <>'s are too much, then
the general layout still offers the same flexibility and future-proofing."

So as to imply that: the way the items are structured (irrelevant of the
specific text which structures them) offers benefits over what is spec'ed
todate.

For example, in my approach the "model ID"s are held in the file; so no
need for extra paperwork for the user who wants something easy to maintain.

A second exmaple would be to replace the construct
    <text onscreen="press PLAY to continue" />
or
    <speech wavfiles="press&play&to&continue" />
...with...
    text: "press PLAY to continue"
or
    wavfiles="press" + "play" + "to" + "continue"

etc.

I also do not see _native_ support for different voice fonts on the web
page yet.

Anway ...The XML is dead ...long live the heirachical structure and the content

BC

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on Tue Jun 28 20:23:36 2005