named.conf file in xml

[Kevin Darcy]

Bit of a non sequitur there IMHO. If your point is "humans shouldn't be 
fiddling with text files directly anyway, the 'Microsoft way' is to have 
some fancy GUI as the human/config interface", then if said GUI is in 
place, what does it matter whether the underlying config is a plain text 
file, an XML file, or a bunch of registry keys? Or, did you have some 
other point, and if so, what is it?

- Kevin

Tom Jones wrote:

>IMHO, It's this kind of thought and denial which allows Microsoft to  
>grow and become more widely used and accepted.
>
>tom
>
>
>On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:40 AM, tsar.peter at gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>"XML is a standard" ???   Well, in the small context of 2005 - 2007
>>maybe XML
>>might qualify as "observed in the wild".   But surviving into a  
>>distand
>>future ?
>>Allow me to doubt.
>>
>>Text files on the other hand will always be readable by humans and
>>manipulated by
>>computers.  Don't forget that the most importent issue with any
>>configuration file
>>format is to be understandable by the human reader ( who has to
>>understand it)
>>
>>
>>Request not granted. :-)
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>