Syntax (was syntax.txt)

Corey Cox sleepnir at
Mon Jun 25 17:55:44 PDT 2001

corey at wrote:
> > 
> > Rather than defining tags and their requirments on a per
> > command basis, we make a more broad and general 'command'
> > tag definition:
> > 
> > <command id='1' name='mv' src='/bin'>
> >   <opt id='1'>
> >     <name>-f</name>
> >     <value />
> >   </opt>
> >   <opt id='2'>
> >     <name />
> >     <value>/foo</value>
> >   </opt>
> >   <opt id='3'>
> >     <name />
> >     <value>/bar</value>
> >   </opt>
> > </command>
> > 
>   I forgot to change my original quick run at the above
>   XML example before I sent the email, should've been
>   modified to:
> <command id='1' name='mv' src='/bin'>
>   <opt id='1' name='-f' value=''>
>   <opt id='2' name='' value='/foo'>
>   <opt id='3' name='' value='/bar'>
> </command
>   This is exactly the time in which tag parameters are
>   best utilized.  
>   ( Plus, that looks a helluva lot cleaner ).

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree here.  As soon as we start to write in what
command has to be used for a step we lose portability.  The idea of the tags,
IMO, is that they should say what is being done and give the data to do it -
not dictate how it has to be done.  If we decide to use different tools later
we will have to do a lot of rewriting.  I don't think that is the way XML is
supposed to be.  Our data should stand alone no matter how we decide to use
it.  This is my opinion, but I think it is shared by others.  Also, I really
don't think it looks cleaner - it is cleaner that that particular example, but
that was only a preliminary definition anyway.  We still need to do a lot of
work on this.

Corey Cox.
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