Re: A common configuration format, anyone?
On 15 November 2012 08:38, Vincent Lefevre <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-15 00:15:06 +0000, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> Also XML is not "diff-able" easily, which is usual for tree-like structures.
> If you mean diff-able for the human, then it depends on the complexity
> of the data. I have no problems with mine. wdiff can help.
> But what I really like with XML is the validation (in some standard
> way) via schemas (for config files, where an error can be critical,
> this is quite important), and the fact that there's no ambiguity on
> the charset.
How about YAML?!