5
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
pkg
|
|
3 |
USE OF XML
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
It might be helpful, for tools development, to offer an XML description
|
|
6 |
of package transactions and manifests.
|
|
7 |
|
8
|
8 |
That is, if we're backing into a full fledged package dialect, beyond
|
|
9 |
something single line-based, then we should consider whether an XML
|
|
10 |
document is a suitable choice. Usual pro-XML, con-XML position follows.
|
|
11 |
|
105
|
12 |
1. Specific cases in support.
|
|
13 |
|
|
14 |
Multiline text properties and localized text properties argues for use
|
|
15 |
of XML.
|
|
16 |
|
|
17 |
Sympathy with <property>, <value>, and <propval> in the smf(5) DTD might
|
|
18 |
be of benefit.
|
|
19 |
|
|
20 |
2. Specific cases against.
|
|
21 |
|
|
22 |
Server side assembly of the transaction into a package version means
|
|
23 |
that the manifest might be difficult to construct. Or maybe not:
|
|
24 |
|
|
25 |
open -> <manifest package="...">
|
|
26 |
add -> <action ...>
|
|
27 |
close -> </manifest>
|
|
28 |
|
|
29 |
(But accept and publish will require that manifest to be imported and
|
|
30 |
updated.)
|
|
31 |
|