Depreciating <reference>

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Tue Feb 3 06:14:05 PST 2004

Jamie Bennett wrote:

> I don't quite get what you mean. 

OK, I'll try to explain better.

> I was simply taking about removing <reference> from version 3.2 of the 
> DTD and instead make the user explicitly use <download> if they are 
> retrieving remote files. (makes sense to me and should to a new user).

Oh, I see what you mean now. I actually like being able to use a single 
element to download and unpack, saves some typing and makes the profile 
smaller. However, it is certainly duplication of code.

> I'm just working on adding <base> to <unpack> and <download> and seeing
> the two very similar blocks of code in <unpack> and <download> made me
> wonder if they were both needed. At the very least we could factor them
> out into a lib but I don't think we should support <reference> anymore.

I originally wanted to factor that code into the library, but had to 
stop where I left it because <reference> and <url> use different syntax 
(one automatically adds the filename and the other doesn't).

I'm not opposed to leaving things where they are, the code duplication 
is already done <G> and we don't have to do much maintenance in that area.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list