Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:28:43 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gpart is junk Message-ID: <20120928042843.6a157e78@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209280918450.4005@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <20120916120041.391C41065680@hub.freebsd.org> <505624A9.7040508@hesiod.org> <CAFHbX1KjLHCHste9H4sV_kwxWT25uRHo%2BoLeL3R4xev=oR8LaQ@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1209170852200.17927@sea.ntplx.net> <BAY167-W132A828DEE55B76CE0C343AED9C0@phx.gbl> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1209270942000.4511@sea.ntplx.net> <CAFHbX1%2BbOutXSwHbkePF11Rz7=fWD_iDpEReCqqyx7W=1u4UnQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209280918450.4005@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:19:12 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >> but still not anywhere as readable as bsdlabel. > > I did specifically say 'machine readable'. The XML is well-formed, > XML is stupid. everything you can do with XML can be better described > using "ancient" style text format This statement is meaningless. XML *is* an '"ancient" style text format' - only with a (very large) collection of standards describing the format, and an (even larger) collection of software for processing text in that format. And "better" is a judgment call. For instance, it's hard for me to consider any text format that doesn't support both external validation and autocompletion in popular editors as "better" than XML. Of course, those do require a schema of some kind, and I can't seem to find one for the document in kern.geom.confxml. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120928042843.6a157e78>