Marc Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why use something as complex as xml? You need to import a > parser at the very least into the deamon. If you must > have opening and closing tags, how about sexpers? > > ((english ((risk high) (vuln-id 1234) > (descr "this attack install windows, ugh"))) > (german (...))) Well, actually I think XML is much simpler than s-expressions. The reason is that free and good-quality XML parsers are available everywhere; with s-expressions you might have to re-invent the wheel many times -- especially since multiple programs written in different programming languages _will_ be used to process the data. Ok, an s-expression parser isn't a very complicated thing, but it isn't a trivial piece of code either if you want to support e.g. comments, UTF-8 (especially important for translations), validation (with XML you get DTDs and Schemas), etc. For instance, a Perl script which reads all the source code files and prints out a list of plugins and their CVE numbers (sorted by CVE), would probably be less than five lines of code (with e.g. XPath). > and I belive that it would be better to keep > things together by language, you do not want > to check 4+ places to se you translated everything. Yes, I agree on this one. Regards, Pasi -- Pasi Eronen E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nixu Oy Tel +358 50 5123499 M�kel�nkatu 91, 00610 Helsinki Fax +358 9 4781030 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]: general discussions about Nessus. * To unsubscribe, send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe nessus" in the body.
