RE: XML Interface
> |> From: "Brian Hunt" <bmh@canada.com> To: <press@debian.org> Subject:
> |> XML Interface Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:25:46 -0000
>
> |> The support of SGML and XML in Debian Linux comes as a very
> |> pleasant, very unexpected, surprise. At this moment I am
> |> motivating several groups of Linux developers, including XFree86,
> |> Samba, and Apache, to move their configuration files to XML based
> |> from the current text-oriented type.
>
> |> At the moment the lack of adequate tools and XML documentation
> |> keeps this endeavor from moving ahead as fast as it might. My
> |> first concern is creating the tools necessary for an end user to
> |> take advantage of XML configuration files. Then porting all the
> |> current configuration sets to XML. This is not a trivial task, and
> |> the more members of development teams working towards it, the
> |> faster it will be implemented. My primary concern is with the end
> |> user experience.
>
> I'd love to talk to you about it, but I don't quite understand why you
> mean when you talk about "XML configuration files".
Currently all the config files for just about everything in Linux is
textual. But disorganzied and practically impossible to edit/update with
standard graphical tools.
Using XML, a common toolset could be used to edit configuration files, and
with adequate DTD's all configuration options would be known, and it is
possible to provide integrated help, and so on and so forth. The
applications of robust XML tools are not limited to this at all -- given
sufficiently dynamic tools one could effectively apply it to any data
structure. (In XML, that is)
The only serious advantage of XML over SGML is its relative simplicity, with
what most consider only marginal sacrifices.
The endgame is to provide an XML toolset with Linux that permits standard
editing of configuration files for all applications currently in use,
through a standard graphical front end. I.e. the Kernel modules, IP
ethernet, PPP, Samba, XFree86, Apache, etc., all their respective settings
can be perfectly described in XML, and hence they can be edited with a
standards XML toolset.
As it stands, propietary toolsets are used for pretty much each
configuration. Hence many points of failure arise. Despite being in high
demand, the supply of a common toolset and a common format is almost
non-existent.
> Much of our efforts in providing an integrated environment has been
> geared towards (a) packaging the useful tools (and it's hard to keep
> up, believe me), and (b) catalog management. Regarding the latter,
> Cees de Groot has an excellent proposal for catalog and entity
> management at
> <URL:http://www.sgmltools.org/docs/sgml-dir-standard/t01.html> which I
> hope we adopt for potato (next release).
>
> [Yes, bug already filed, and Manoj, the sgml-base maintainer, agrees,
> last I talked to him about it..]
>
> I suspect you're talking about something completely different,
> however.
Yes, I quickly reviewed the proposal you suggested. It became obvious that
this is something not unrelated to what I would like to see. Even more
obvious was that these are not the same things ... similar goals, but little
else. :)
Both are of interest to me -- should I find common ground between this
project and that, I will take advantage of it as best possible.
In the mean time, I have to find a host for a web page and set up an email
list for this Linux-XML project. (Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.)
Brian
Reply to: