[0xbadcafebee]

> Wish we’d all agree to one templated configuration format.

If you mean a standard configuration file format, that has almost never happened in the entire history of computing. There are standard data formats, sure, but to standardize a configuration file, all the applications need to be limited to the functionality expressed in a single config file format. Most applications hate that, because they want to add infinite features, and none want to wait to standardize some new version of a config file in order to release their features. (If they release before the config file changes happen, now you have a vendor-specific extension, which means waving goodbye to standardization)

The following are the only configuration file formats I am aware of that have been standardized:

  - bind zone configuration
  - inittab

Crontab isn't standard because different crons have different features. passwd, group, shadow, etc aren't standard configurations because they are actually databases. And anything else which goes over the wire instead of a file is a protocol, not a configuration.

Now, it's still not a bad idea to have standardization. The trick is to make it so they can change their configuration, but still be compatible with each other, and the general way to do that is to abstract the configuration elements via schemas. That way you can have the same basic functionality for each app, but they can define it however they want so that it can be re-mapped or interpreted by a different program.

However, that is in no way simple for a regular user to use. So to convince app developers to have a "standard configuration format", you need to reframe the value proposition. What's the value add? If you say it's just to a user can use one config file on many competing products, the developers won't care about what, because they want you to use their product, not be able to move to another one. If instead you reframe it as "extensible language for integrating and composing multiple independent pieces of software/functionality into one distributed system", then their ears might perk a bit. Basically, reformulate the proposed solution as a language to compose programs, like Unix pipes, but slightly more verbose/abstracted. The end result should be able to be read by any program supporting the config format, and "declaratively" (modern programmers love this ridiculous cargo cult) compose and execute distributed jobs across any system.

[znpy]

you basically described xml.

not sure I want to go back to that.

[sneak]

There was pretty broad ad hoc standardization in dos/windowsland on the ini-file format, which was broadly formalized as toml years later.

[0xbadcafebee]

Those are really data formats, not configuration. Their only features seem to be expressing simple data in different types and structures. The only advantages toml even advertises are types and mapping to hash tables. Those are all things computers appreciate, but humans need more nuance and functionality.