On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:05:46AM -0000, Adam Spragg wrote: > > On 05/10/2010, Adam Spragg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The idea of these options is to be able to combine them to produce a > >> "canonical", nearly line-oriented format for XML files. > > > > Are you familiar with the "Canonical XML" W3C Recommendation and its > > implementation in libxml2? > [snip] > > The idea seems reasonable, but I don't know if adding code to libxml2 > > is the right first step. It's a core library people are rightly > > nervous about updating, and with only an implementation and no spec to > > go off, > > Hmmm....if I redid the "sort" part of the patch to stand completely on its > own, rename the option to XML_SAVE_CANONICAL, and used it to implement the > "Canonical XML" spec instead, would that likely be more acceptable? > > I could do a respin of the in-tag pretty-printing patch afterward if > anyone thought it was still worth discussing/speccing.
Actually I went though your patches now, So I think this new formatting is an interesting addition since it's garanteed to be non-destructive, but reimplementing/reinventing the C14N spec doesn't sound so good (unless it comes as a patch reusing the existing c14n code). So I did apply and commit the first 3 patches nearly as is, adding the new xmllint option. IMHO there isn't really a need at the xmllint level for the following since --c14n just implement the spec. At the API level c14n really comes as a separate module. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
