Hi everyone, It's been a long time since I've been here, for which I apologise. Turns out studying physics doesn't leave you with a lot of spare time. :-)
I've gone trough the entire discussion here. What follows is a write-up of my ideas about it. Thomas Pegg wrote: > Agreed on all points. And is a good start from everything that's been > discussed lately. Same feeling here. > On thing on about using XML for the profiles, I've begun to not like it > myself which why I've stopped using it for my own purposes short of > doing updates for the profiles and making sure everything works as it > should within the profiles. I know exactely what you're saying. When I find the time to maintain the BLFS profile (that hardly ever happens, like once a month or so), I can never do something usefull because the XML is such a big hurdle. I really feel like preparing a release of the profile is like fighting a war against it, and it shouldn't be that way. Hence I propose to ditch xml entirely, except maybe for the communication protocol (that is: If we use SOAP, we'll obviously need xml support). It has been proven in jhALFS that we can parse the book to sh-commands directly, so the use of xml to represent the commands has pretty much gone. The only way I think xml would be useful is in a system where the dtd/schema would have *every* possible command in it (even the obscure ones like bc or so). It wouldn't be to difficult to auto-generate an xml profile then. It's just a matter of having the xslt processor extract tags from the book and put them in a "profile" in the right order. Someone said ant works this way, but I don't have any experience with it. Don't know how it works out. But as I said before, I favour ditching xml support entirely. I hope to see a new tool shortly, so c'mon let's code! ;-) Joachim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
