RE: XML was RE: [GD-General] RE: A portable preferences library

[Paul B. <pa...@mi...>]

We ended up using a ton of Xpath query expressions in a number
of places throughout development.  We had a simple commandline
tool called 'xq' that allowed our designers to run xpath queries
against data.

We also used a number of languages (Perl, Python, .net stuff,
etc...) for our tools.  Sure, you can parse INI files in all
of those languages but we didn't have to write any code as
it was.

Finally, we used XML Schema for external data validation.  While
it didn't do semantic validation, things like Schematron might
have been interesting there.

There were other advantages but interop (in lots of forms) was
the most useful.
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gam...@li...=20
> [mailto:gam...@li...] On=20
> Behalf Of Brian Hook
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:14 PM
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: XML was RE: [GD-General] RE: A portable preferences library
>=20
> This list server is getting more and more flakey...anyway,=20
> this is a repost since my prior one evidently went into the=20
> great void..
>=20
> > Behalf Of Jeff Laing
> > I'm surprised that no-one has said "use XML format please"=20
> - its not=20
> > that painful, given that you'll have a fairly limited schema to=20
> > implement.
>=20
> So here's a question -- I know that whenever a discussion=20
> about text file formats comes up there is often a "use XML"=20
> grenade tossed into it.  Now, I can think of a lot of reasons=20
> NOT to use XML (i.e. it's overkill, for one), but I'm curious=20
> what real, tangible reasons for using XML exist, as opposed=20
> to a simple application specific structure (like INI files).
>=20
> Brian
>=20