mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Mon Apr 1 13:57:19 PST 2002
On 2002.04.01 10:11 Neven Has wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 05:24:04PM +0200, Lee Saferite wrote:
> > > Well yes, but <info> would be just a container, a parent element
> > > grouping other elements. So it's different, I think.
> > >
> > > But I'm fine with <stageinfo> too, I don't find this that
> > > issue.
> > It is a container, but for the DTD you specify WHAT it can/cannot
> > contain. Hence the need for two of them.
> Yes, you're right. I'm always forgetting about that DTD.
Doh ! I'm always thinking in terms of DTD, and i was thinking exactly
the same as Neven. Of course they have to be different elements :)
> > Err, ok, maybe I got the term wrong. I 'THOUGHT' the set would
> create a
> > new environment with nothing in it. and add/append would add
> variable to
> > the current environmet.>
> You, and probably everybody else. :) I'm just realizing that what I
> thinking (appending to a variable) doesn't belong at all in
> element, but in <variable> instead.
> I like the idea of creating a new environment (so there is no need
> the user previously unsets all not needed variables). Which together
> would give us something like:
> <environment mode="set|add">
> <variable mode="append" name="" value="" />
> Although, I think that:
> <environment mode="add">
> <variable mode="append">
> would be more clearer/structured/more XML-like/whatever... ?
> In the past we were so desperately trying to run away from the amount
> attributes there were in the syntax, so this might be better solution?
> (Not for that reason only of course, but in general.)
> And I think "add" _is_ better than "append" in the above case.
I like the element structure rather than the attributes too, though in
this case we could probably go with either, its a "look and feel" thing.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss