Re: Xml in packaging system

[Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's exactly my point.  Since xml is still ascii, you can always use 
vi to fix things when they are really screwed.  But it still gives you 
many of the benefits of a more complicated binary data format.  I think 
this is important for something like a package system when potentially 
many tools (written by many different people) are munging your package data.

And if it grows really large, you can always use Sleepycat's xml database.

And in my experience, whenever a project uses name=value pairs, the 
"value" part becomes increasingly complicated until it starts to look 
like a pseudo-html or pseudo-xml.

But anything would be better than the format used by INDEX.

Richard Coleman
richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

js wrote:
> Starting a new project is very different
> from maintaining or enhancing an existing
> project.
>
> In the xml vs all other options debate
> the advantages of choosing xml will
> occurr when the inevitable updates and
> upgrades occur. It will be easier to
> enhance xml based data formats without
> breaking existing code.
>
> Take pretty printing, or importing
> exporting the files to other programs.
> If you choose xml as the underlying
> format these types of operations are
> trivial.
>
> xml is the new ascii.