On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:19:17AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 11:32:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > If we want to introduce a new element, perhaps it could look like > > > > this: > > > > > > > > <loader type='rom'>/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF.qemuvars.fd</loader> > > > > <varstore type='uefi-vars'> > > > > <template path='/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF_VARS.qemuvars.json'/> > > > > <source path='/path/to/guest.json'/> > > > > </varstore> > > > > > <loader type='rom'>/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF.qemuvars.fd</loader> > > > <varstore template='/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF_VARS.qemuvars.json' > > > path='/path/to/guest.json'/> > > > > <varstore template='...'>/path/to/guest.json</varstore> ? > > > > Following what we are doing for nvram ... > > That would rule out extending with sub-elements later: > > <varstore template='...'> > /path/to/guest.json > <db>...</db> > </varstore> > > is not valid XML.
Ah, ok. Clearly I'm not an XML expert ;) I like your second version more because it is at least closer to nvram and (hopefully) easier to remember. > There's no hard and fast rule so often it's down to the taste of > whoever introduces the new element/attribute. Having to go through > review normalizes this to some extent, but ultimately what we have > today is just the result of a schema growing organically over 20 > years while maintaining full backwards compatibility :) So, just continue that scheme and pick what you personally prefer? take care, Gerd
