RE: merge mode for XML

[Noel Yap]

--- Sean Hager <address@hidden> wrote:
> Actually pattern matching would put the users at the
> mercy
>  of CVS more then extension ( really I mean wild
> card )
>  matching.  Pattern matching could be very
> unreliable and
>  produce different results based on the content of
> the
>  document per version, when the format per version
> has not
>  changed.  Wild card matching puts the users in the
> drivers
>  seat.  You can control how CVS will work with your
> files
>  with naming conventions.

I had understood "pattern matching" to be "pattern
matching the name, not the contents, of the file".  In
this context, pattern matching would be an extended
form of extenstion matching.

OTOH, the pattern matching you mention is more like
the magic file.  I actually think this is an even
better mechanism.  IIRC, magic files work using
several ways (including extension matching and some
content checking) to guess at a file's type.  Note
that the content that "magic" looks at is typically in
the header or footer of the file in question.  These
first and/or last few bytes of files are pretty good
ways to guess at a file's type.  "man file" for an
example of how well this works.

>  I think programmers
>  are smart enough to follow naming conventions, and
>  understand the consequences of breaking the
> conventions.

I agree.  This doesn't, however, cover all the
remaining issues with regards to extension checking:
1. Extenstions don't have one-to-one mapping with file
types.
2. Not all files have extensions (this is actually a
specific case of the former).

It's also not clear whether you're talking about using
extensions for the initial settings, or for the
life-time settings, of the file.  Do you think users
should be able to override whatever CVS thinks
"should" happen?

Noel


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com