Richard, This sounds good to me.
Suggest we stick with REGEDIT4 as the version info for now just so as NOT to confuse anyone (or any M$ thing). - John T. On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Richard Sharpe wrote: > Hi, > > Having thought about this issue a little more, I propose using a format > similar to REGEDIT4. Indeed, for compatibility, I propose that editreg be > able to process REGEDIT4 files, and that I specify an EDITREG1.0 file > format as well. > > REGEDIT4 seems to have the syntax: > > REGEDIT4 > > \[[-]<key>\] > "<value-name>"=[-]|"<value-expression>" > > Where a - in front of a key name serves to delete that key, otherwise it > is added, and a - after the equal sign serves to delete that value name. I > would imagine that an empty value name signifies the default value. > > Since I also want to be able to deal with renaming keys, and > adding/changing security, the EDITREG1.0 format will be similar to the > above, except: > > EDITREG1.0 > > \[[<k-cmd>:]<key>[:<new-name>]\] > [S:<s-cmd>:<sec-expression>[:<new-sec-exp>]] > [V:<v-cmd>:<val-expression>] > > ... > > k-cmd ::= A | D | R # Add, Delete, Rename > s-kmd ::= A | I<n> | D | C # Add, Insert at n, Delete, Change > > and so on ... > > Regards > ----- > Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, > sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com > -- John H Terpstra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
