On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Dale Worley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:16 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:48 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: >> > In regard to having sipviewer apply annotations to the siptrace file to >> > show how the file should be displayed: The annotations should have >> > their own XML namespace, so the annotations can be cleanly separated >> > from the trace data itself. >> >> What's wrong with just different element names? > > It would work. But the display annotations are distinctly different > semantically. Putting them in a separate namespace would clarify the > distinction, and maintain separation of concerns between the programs > that extract and process traces, and sipviewer.
I would prefer the same file solution as it makes life easier for other prostprocessing tools ( such as the regression tester that I am building). One question : For a given arc, would you disambiguate between INBOUND and OUTBOUND annotations? > > Dale > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
