Just wanted to reinforce the idea that while feedback from your peers may provide a useful starting point, different people have different opinions of what configs sound good in what circumstances, etc. Also, while it helps a lot to understand the physics (a la the sterephonic zoom doc), no documentation can tell you how the recording will sound to your ears, or what sound you prefer. Opinion is very much a part of making recordings that
you like, and real-life field experience - and experimentation - is critical to developing your own opinions on mic configs.
Regarding feedback from your peers, and people having different opinions, consider XY. Many people find it has a narrow soundstage. I used to think so, too, until I started running wider included angles. The wider included angles really opened up the soundstage for me. I also find I prefer XY (or other coincident techniques like Mid-Side or Blumlein) on-stage or stage lip as I think the spacing of near-coincident techniques (like ORTF, DIN, etc.) sometimes exaggerates the soundstage to a point I find unnatural, while others love these near-coincident techniques on-stage.
As for the stereophonic zoom comment...the information, again, serves as a good starting point. It won't do you any good until you experiment and find what you like, when, and where. For example, you might be in a situation with a narrow soundstage, so you may decide to run 20cm spacing with an included angle of 130º. While this may provide more accurate stereo representation of the soundstage, in a loud concert environment it might also capture too much ambient noise - so while you gain stereo imaging, you might also gain the undesirable effects of increased crowd noise and reverberant sound.
So...take the comments as starting points only and get out there and record to see what you like.