Re: Re: dtd for package.xml-files

Looks like you have a competitor for the man who never sleeps greg ;) Upon cursory review it looks good. There are some whitespace issues (like function name()), in the code too sometimes the equal sign is far away from the variable. But it's just to be picky ;) XML_Beautifier sounds good to me. Arnaud. > I'd like to see at the very least subpackages in there, and possibly the > publicweb role. There have been no solid oppositions to publicweb, and > I think people like subpackages now too, although it's hard to tell :). > This would involve adding the allowed dependency type "spkg" and file > role "publicweb" or whatever people want to call it. > > Greg