Re:Toml: Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language
by CMay on Friday July 13, 2018 @07:48PM
(#17527784)
This was the first thing I noticed as well. It was always somewhat alienating when encountering newer formats that were less friendly than what came before. I think TOML does a good job of taking what came before and bringing it forward.
Over the many years of the usage of INI I think occasionally we've seen developers add their own touches to how they support types, sections, groups, multi-dimensional arrays or other structures within config files that certainly indicated a need for some more standardized advancement here.
I really hope this gains a lot of traction, because there are so many scenarios where things like XML or JSON are forced into roles they really don't belong in.
One thing that I would say is that it might be worth indicating a standard header that can be used at the very least in cases when it is not stored in a file with a .toml extension. It would not surprise me at all to see TOML widely used with extensions that describe better the intent of the file rather than the format.
Over the many years of the usage of INI I think occasionally we've seen developers add their own touches to how they support types, sections, groups, multi-dimensional arrays or other structures within config files that certainly indicated a need for some more standardized advancement here.
I really hope this gains a lot of traction, because there are so many scenarios where things like XML or JSON are forced into roles they really don't belong in.
One thing that I would say is that it might be worth indicating a standard header that can be used at the very least in cases when it is not stored in a file with a .toml extension. It would not surprise me at all to see TOML widely used with extensions that describe better the intent of the file rather than the format.