Daryle Walker wrote:
On 2/2/06 7:45 AM, "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems to me that normalization could be part of the testing system,
rather than *forced* to be part of the qbk generation process every
time.
I would argue the other way: why isn't QuickBook output normalized as it's
generated? It's the "be conservative in what you send" principle.
But for the "be liberal in what you receive" principle, we could use
normalization within testing. There are third-party tools that can
normalize XML output as part of pretty-printing. Examples are xmllint (part
of the "libxml" toolkit at <http://xmlsoft.org>) and xmlformat (at
<http://www.kitebird.com/software/xmlformat/>).
Wish I knew those before I wrote the post processor. Well,
if you think we'll get better results with those, patches
are very welcome.
Cheers,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
