Tobias Schlitt wrote: > Just for curiosity: Why are you using such an EBNF-like format instead > of a standardized way for describing XML formats, for example > XML-Schema? We need that later, anyway, so it sounds logical to me to > use it right from the start. Or am I wrong?
The reasons were that schemas are harder to read, and too many things were unclear to create it. So I've decided to use simplified form to get more responses on issues. (but even in this case I'm getting not very much of them) But now I'm going to create a real scheme, as anyway there is not much feedback. -- Kirill Subbotin Software Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems | ez.no -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
