[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch? |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:18:20 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 02:04:28PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sunday 21 December 2003 17:57, Tom Lord wrote:
> > > From: michael josenhans <address@hidden>
> > > In XML the following terms are devared as equivalent:
> > >
> > > a) <nodename attiribute='5656'></nodename>
> > > b) <nodename attiribute='5656'/>
> > >
> > > Spaces outside the nodes are irrelevant. Thus according to
> > > standard after reading and saving a XML-file, the XML-file might
> > > look different, even if its content has not changed.
> >
> > Yikes.
> >
> > On the one hand, sure, you could abstract the `cmp' and conceptually
> > the world doesn't fall apart.
> >
> > But on the other hand, that would mean (for example) that `get' would
> > sometimes return a tree whose source files are not byte-wise
> > equivalent to those that were passed to `commit'. It's a pretty
> > big leap of faith to think that that's desirable.
>
> If a file is an honest XML file I fail to see why this would be a problem;
> remember that the whole idea of using an xmlDiff on the file was to avoid
> merge conflicts since
> <bla name1="val" name2=val" />
> and
> <bla name2="val" name1=val" />
> give a change in diff(1) but are really equivalent (as just another example)
No, that was not the idea at all.
The idea was to avoid conflicts in this case:
Original:
<foo name1="val1" />
Modified1:
<foo name1="val1" />
<foo name2="val2" />
Modified2:
<foo name1="val1" />
<foo name3="val3" />
When taking the diff from Original to Modified1, and applying it to Modified2.
A generic XML diff tool fails *utterly* to comprehend what to do in
this case. It must throw a conflict and fail.
> It all revolves around what you conceptual level the diff works on.
Yes, it does. XML's the wrong one; always remember that "XML" and
"binary data" are synonymous for all purposes.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Thomas Zander, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Anselm Lingnau, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, michael josenhans, 2003/12/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Tom Lord, 2003/12/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Thomas Zander, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?,
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Thomas Zander, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Thomas Zander, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Tom Lord, 2003/12/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, michael josenhans, 2003/12/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Tom Lord, 2003/12/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Charles Duffy, 2003/12/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, michael josenhans, 2003/12/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File-tpye plug-in architecture for Arch?, Tom Lord, 2003/12/22