Re: package.xml 2.0 dilemma

Alan Knowles wrote: >this sounds like a good start, I'm tempted to look at the code for this >and make it more solid. >like: >- show warnings where it's making risky assumptions >- add getMeta($key) to PEAR_Package_v1, to retreive extra details from >the XML file (eg. like <channel> </channel> tags..... etc.) > >>From my look at the code, there is no restriction on adding tags to V1 >files and it's trivial to add support for extra tags which could be >stored as meta data(which would be ignored by older versions) and >available to autogenerate more consise V2 files. > I know you're busy with svn/DBDO/etc., but if you would like to do this, it sounds very interesting to me. Perhaps also run the idea by Pierre/Stig/Tomas since I'm sure all 3 are somewhat more active in the summer. It's true, the old validation code for package.xml 1.0 was pretty skimpy on added tags. One feature I would like to add, now that you mention it, is the explicit ability to ignore tags from another namespace. This should be pretty simple to implement, I'll take a look over the next few weeks. In this way, you could implement the additional tags by defining another namespace, and simply inserting them. This is also the best way to do the thing the XML way, as it allows breaking BC without actually breaking it. I need to do a bit more experimentation with XSchema and namespacing to see if it must be explicit, but this shouldn't be a problem even if it does need to be, just a bit of tedious work :). Greg