On Tuesday 22 July 2008 19:24, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Moreover, if you're editing by hand, you can use > > something that recognizes XML. > > of course it will work, but it will take x-times more time. > quite difference to write sed one-liner or start doing some > xslt templating. > > pavel
Yeah, I think this was the point I was trying to get across. With the current format, you can do a lot with Vim. Or you can run through a series of small filters that do just one thing. XML's a different animal. Without a parser, it's almost impossible to handle. With a parser, you're forced to work only within the language of that parser, and you're forced to make a monolithic solution that can't take advantage of Unix pipes and small executables that do one thing and do it well. You also forgo the ability to have a series of intermediate files, each serving as a test point to make sure things are still going well. Also, an XML parser, especially a DOM one, makes READING XML very easy, but it does nothing for WRITING. Pavel -- you and I and others like us need to start identifying parsing tools to at least partially compensate for the loss of our Unix based pipes with small filter executables. Theoretically, if one could read the XML into a DOM tree, tweak it in memory, and then write it back out, that would be at least somewhat doable, though nothing like the Awk and Perl techniques I'm used to. And once again, we need COMPLETE documentation on the XML dialect, and Like I said I'm willing to help with that documentation. SteveT Steve Litt Recession Relief Package http://www.recession-relief.US
