On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 15:59 +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Alexey Melnikov writes:
If we want to allow for magic comments, it make sense for them to be
in a separate namespace. But then magic comments are typically
implementation specific. So I unless we want to startadize them, I
don't think the document needs another namespace.
Each generator may want to use a namespace of its own for its particular
foo. I am not an expert in this. If that's considered good XML taste,
then that should be illustrated in an example or two.
I think that it's bad to make the XML representation more expressive
than the basic Sieve language. we can't have two types of comments in
XML Sieve, and just one type in plain Sieve. if we want to cater for
"magic comments", we should make a mechanism for it in Sieve itself.
one way would be to add a new "action", like
"meta" UP-TO-DATE TOKEN TEXT
where UP-TO-DATE is a boolean, TOKEN is a unique identifier (e.g.
domainname of the implementer, I wouldn't want an IANA registry), and
TEXT is opaque information. the specification should say that the
"meta" is attached to the next non-"meta" statement, and if that
statement changes semantic meaning, UP-TO-DATE for unknown TOKENs should
be set to FALSE. if a statement is removed, all "meta" statements
associated with it should be removed as well.
(I only spent five minutes on this "spec", so take it for what it's
worth ;-)
--
regards,
Kjetil T.