DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Xml in packaging system

To: David Rhodus <drhodus@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Vadim Chekan <vchekan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:10:16 +0000

Also it would allow to compete several tools as soon as data format (called "schema" in xml language) is stable.

I think this is a good example of a problem not to use xml with. If this were a talk about sending electronic data and to use something such as ANSI X.12 v.s. XML, XML would be the best choice. XML should be best left for electronic data interchange and not application configurations.

I'm afraid I do not get what you mean. Why do you think that xml has so limited applicable area?

You can think about xml as about a tree like data format with custom attributes feature. And a bunch of tools provided for format verification(schema), query language(xpath), transformation(xsl) etc. It does not sound like definition for "electronic data interchange".
Why "interchange" only?
Why not "generic-purposes hierarchical data format"?

Ok. Finaly it can be something else, not xml. Xml is just an example. Why I really wrote the mail is to tell which features I'd like to see in port system. It is flexible n-level depth tree structure, and some easy way to parse port attributes. At the moment I believe xml is good choise taking into account features I wish.

Vadim Chekan

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]