[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A common configuration format, anyone?

On 15/11/12 10:18, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On 15 November 2012 08:38, Vincent Lefevre<vincent@vinc17.net>  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?!
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.

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.




Reply to: