3.6 "full" packages

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Jul 29 12:26:09 UTC 2003


Michael Rueger <m.rueger at acm.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
> To me XML is a structured file format and nothing more. If not abused it 
> solves a number of problems that I/we would need to find solutions for 
> anyways. There are tons of viewers, validators etc out there that we can 
> make use of, web browsers can display it in a structured way etc.
> I'm just sick of the not-invented-here syndrom...

I agree Michael and I also agree (after some thinking) that an XML
format might be the best way to go.

I just get this reflex nowadays that when people say "Hey, let's use
XML!" I say "WHY?". As I said I have actually worked quite a lot with
XML (built a very complex fileformat for a QuarkXPress killerapp in XML
etc including tons of tricks with entities to embed images etc). It is
just that often it also introduces complexity instead of reducing it.

But sure, adding the prereq of a simple XML parser in order to install
packages might not be too bad considering the benefits. But then we
should perhaps check other efforts in this area - Rosetta? Other
formats? If there is a good XML grammar already that can be used then
perhaps we should look into it.

After some more thought I also think that it is GOOD that Monticello has
a new fileformat. That way we can let go of the problem of backwards
compatibility (for that format) and make sure it turns out good.
Sometimes letting go is the RIGHT THING to do. Still of course it is
nice if we make sure (as Ned points out in his good posts) that
Monticello does the "best thing it can" with .st files.

> Michael

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list