emage at emage at
Mon Jun 25 23:07:16 PDT 2001

I just read corey at's (long) post, and have a few responses:

> I don't believe XML's primary purpose is to *abstract* your data,
> as you say -- but, rather, to *describe* your data.  Now, how one
> *applies* that data is a matter of design and implementation, which
> occurs within the code logic of whatever is parsing the xml.

I disagree here...XML is supposed to abstract the data, to a degree, to make
the coding as simple as possible for a profile maker that doesn't _need_ that
level of control.  Also, there's no reason the defined constructs can't be
configurable...for example:

  <command name="make" tool="/usr/bin/pmake"/>
  <command name="move" tool="_BUILTIN"/>

And anything not specified gets whatever default makes sense...granted, that's
not terribly well thought-out and it could probably be done better, but the
idea is to minimize the number of times you put in the same information, while
retaining abstraction and customizability.

The way I see it, the profile-writer should be able to decide how much
abstraction to use.  Granted, that makes the jobs of the BE and DTD writers
more complicated, but I think that's acceptable, given that a BE has to be
written once, while a profile should IMHO be customized by each user.

Walter Mundt
emage at
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