W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Config file suggestion (fwd)

From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@rcn.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:02:29 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020414214219.02cb6e58@pop.rcn.com>
To: "J. David Bryan" <jdbryan@acm.org>
Cc: HTML Tidy List <html-tidy@w3.org>
Good point.  I just use the command line on my ex.rc file for MKS vi, so I 
never noticed.  Yes, I do live in a cave.  Why do you ask? <grin>

I'd hesitate to use .ini, tho.  If only because it denotes that you can 
access properties using the Win32 INI file functions, e.g. 
GetPrivateProfileString().  tidy.cfg would be fine.  Many programs use .cfg 
as a proprietary config file extension.  At least, I don't know of a 
standard format, de facto or otherwise, for this extension.

In the context of the original posting, the point is the same.  Ask any two 
Tidy users, and you will get two different preferred names for the config 
file.  Better to let the user specify in a convenient manner at build time.

take it easy,
Charlie


At 07:15 PM 4/14/2002 -0400, J. David Bryan wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2002, at 13:47, Charles Reitzel wrote:
>
> > If you must support a DOS/Windows-style file name, my vote is tidy.rc.
> > At least this file extension can be associated with a text editor for
> > easy access from the GUI.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>I would recommend against ".rc" as the configuration file extension, at
>least on Win32 platforms.  That extension has been used historically for
>Windows resource compiler source files.
>
>I would suggest that ".ini" might be better for the Win32 platform, as it
>is already associated with program configuration files and likely is
>already set up to invoke a text editor.
>
>                                       -- Dave
Received on Sunday, 14 April 2002 22:04:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:52 GMT