Re: A common configuration format, anyone?
On 15/11/12 10:18, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Yeah, I took a look at that and it's got some neat ideas, but it targets
modelling, where mine targets content.
The v3c-storyboard test/examples show how you can overlay semantic
validation - test2 even allows you to specify a bison grammar for this.
On 15 November 2012 08:38, Vincent Lefevre<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
How about YAML?!
Where sbd wins over YAML in terms of format is that it's a binary
representation that can be walked any way you like and is in-place-editable.
You can generate sbd (the binary format) from sbt files (the text
format), and sometimes I still find a text editor handier for some
things, then drag-drop the result into sb-designer to insert it into an sbd.