Glenn,
I agree. I think it would be nice if
the naming/indexing of data was included in the standard. The examples
from the BOF adopted the convention of using a "name" attribute
within certain tags, such as <interface name="Ethernet0/0">.
I think it would be nice if this convention was made part of the
standard.
It doesn't make sense for all tags,
though. We have some ideas about which tags should contain names and
which shouldn't, but going into that may be jumping the gun on
standardizing the content/schema. The problem is, how do we address your
concern without talking at least a little bit about the structure of the XML?
Keith
Allen
SBC
Technology Resources
9505
Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
(512)
372-5741
kallen@tri.sbc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Waters
[mailto:gww@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, March
24, 2003 2:59 PM
To: Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: RE: being simple-minded
There is no discussion in the draft around naming or
indexing of data (i.e.: how do you get/set/delete a portion of the
configuration). I had assumed that this was a requirement of this work.
Do other people agree?
/gww
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 15:44
> To: xml list
> Subject: being simple-minded
>
>
>
Maybe I am being too simple minded.
>
>
I like the Enns & Co proposal because it lets
> operators replace (Tcl/Expect,
PERL, DBMS)
> with (PERL, DBMS), once the
stuff needed to
> move the XML over the wire is
placed into a
> PERL library module[1].
In short, we get rid of
> screen scraping. That by
itself is a nice benefit.
>
>
I fear trying to solve bigger more complex
> issues immediately, because
that would delay the
> ability of operators to
deprecate Tcl/Expect
> screen scraping.
>
>
Later on, after the screen scraping is gone,
> I'd be quite comfortable
talking about looking for
> a next thing to
optimise. However, I'd like to fix
> screen scraping before moving
on to more complex stuff.
>
>
Maybe some folks think this approach is too
> simple minded. I like to
think of it as practical.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ran
>
> [1] Such a module exists today
for JunOScript. I take
> that as an existence proof
that such a module could be
> created for the current Enns
& Co proposal, which is a
> bit different than the
JunOScript stuff.
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message
to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a
single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>