syntax, ALFS, nALFS -- versioning

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Fri Aug 10 14:29:59 PDT 2001

On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 10:26:56AM -0700, CoreyCox wrote:
> I think:  First I think the version= attribute should refer to the 
> version of the syntax that the profile is written in.  This way the ALFS 
> agent could check that and know whether it can interpret it or not - or 
> if we get really sophisticated in the future it could allow backwards 
> compatibilty.  Second I think we need to decide on a versioning system 
> for the syntax, and start using it.  That way we dont' back ourselves 
> into a corner when no one can figure out which profiles are suposed to 
> wokr on which versions of interpreter.

But do you really want to allow several different syntaxes? I don't see any
benefit of that - it could only confuse people. My opinion is that we should
force "the one and only" syntax. Switching to a new one could be done quickly
and painlessly. :)

> The next thing I'd like to see is a little different.  This I think 
> would be very useful for both developement of profiles and within the 
> interpreters themselves.  This would be a module to test for validity 
> against a DTD.  I know we dont' currently have one - but I could knock 
> one out real quick with the new syntax real quick - or anyone else could 
> do it too.  Then this module could be used to test profiles before the 
> build process - further it would test whether we are really using the 
> XMLcorrectly.  Let me know what you think.

Well, I can only say that "You_forgot_this_or_that" types of messages in
the middle of compiling are not very pleasant, so some sort of checking at
the beginning would be very useful.

I'm totally clueless about DTD syntax, so those of you who know it... :)


Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list