From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EY2ju-0000B7-6g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:40:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jA4Ec0IV025808; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:38:00 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jA4EQU6A031643 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:26:30 GMT Received: from gentoo.xs4all.nl ([213.84.68.112] helo=[10.0.0.2]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EY2WT-0007wq-HY for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:26:30 +0000 Message-ID: <436B6F94.4060205@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:26:28 +0100 From: Xavier Neys User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051026) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting References: <20051101015125.1cc45eb4@snowdrop.home> <200511012257.22527.jkt@gentoo.org> <20051101221635.1a53a258@snowdrop.home> <200511021933.38078.jkt@gentoo.org> <20051102223443.042bae23@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20051102223443.042bae23@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id jA4EQU6A031643 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id jA4Ec0K7025808 X-Archives-Salt: 5d961577-6a1d-4624-a2ab-c890c88abaa4 X-Archives-Hash: f5d3a8f5e3f79c24ef0e82182482b130 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:33:37 +0100 Jan Kundr=C3=A1t wro= te: > | "Once this tool is implemented and well tested it can be integrated > | into portage." >=20 > can ! will. It might, but don't count on it. >=20 > | GLSA already contains stuff for marking items as valid only for given > | systems, for "injecting" them etc. Why don't use existing code? Why > | duplication? >=20 > Because it's quicker to invent a wheel which is actually round. Reinventing rounder wheels seems to be a common hobby. > | > You think XML magically makes things compatible? Then I suggest you > | > write a GuieXML to Docbook conversion tool, and see how many > | > thousand lines of XSLT it takes. All XML does is move the > | > conversion and parsing problems to a different, more complex level. > |=20 > | I'm not familiar with DocBook, but I doubt I'll need thousands of > | lines of code. >=20 > Oh? Our GuideXML to HTML conversion is thousands of lines of code... Plain wrong, but you have always made it clear that you are not only bias= ed=20 against XML for anything, but also very much XML challenged. Don't worry, some are even worse than you are, worse enough to claim that= XML=20 is hard to parse because "XML files from a programming perspective requir= e=20 extra logic to parse. Compare the following key value pair and xml tag ps= eudo=20 parsing logic for configuration: entry Hit a >, tag1 as realized tag name, read until <, read ahead one to ensur= e a=20 closing slash, read until > to get the tag name, compare tag name with=20 previous tag name to see what tag it's closing. store value attached to t= ag1." Just a short sample against metadata.xml using ruby/dom instead of python= /sax: http://dev.gentoo.org/~neysx/metax.rb Discarding XML for the reasons some are using is like recommending key=3D= value=20 flat .ini files because windows used it in the 80s. They have to be parsed as well, and, as opposed to XML, you have to check= for=20 unknown keys, double keys, missing ones, then you need some grouping and = you=20 introduce [sections], which you have to check as well, no doubles, no mis= sing=20 ones, no illegal ones, then you need a deeper hierarchy and you use=20 key=3D/path/to/another/file.ini... Both have reasons to be used, neither is a one-fits-all answer. Anyway, this is getting off-topic, and, FWIW, I believe the suggested for= mat=20 is adequate because it is light, easy to write, read, parse, and even=20 transform into XML should one process ever need it. Besides, it is very m= uch=20 standard, if it's good enough for billions of mail and http messages a da= y,=20 it's probably good enough for us. --=20 / Xavier Neys \_ Gentoo Documentation Project / French & Internationalisation Lead \ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en /\ --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list