On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 12:02 +0200, David Faure wrote: > On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 20:42 +0200, David Faure wrote: > > > On Thursday 26 March 2009, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 11:30 +0100, David Faure wrote: > > > > > What's the next step? I can provide a patch for the spec, but I have > > > > > to rely on you > > > > > guys to do the code changes. > > > > > > Patch for the specification attached, please review. > > > > > > > Are there really much code changes required? > > > > What are the ordering behaviour of these nodes? > > For example in this: > > > > <glob pattern="*.foo"/> > > <glob deleteall="true"/> > > <glob pattern="*.bar"/> > > > > Is foo deleted or not? > > > > Since deleteall is a attribute of glob, one could do: > > > > <glob deleteall="true" pattern="*.foo"/> > > > > Is this allowed? > > You're right, this is all a bit fishy. > > > Maybe we should have a <glob-deleteall> node instead to avoid these > > issues? It would translate in the same way as the above in the files. > > Good idea indeed. And then order doesn't matter, this node means > delete globs from previous dirs, not delete any globs found here, even if > it comes after <glob> elements, right? That seems sensible to me.
Yes, that seems better. Want to update your patch? _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
