Subj : XML
To : Scott Little
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Tue Dec 31 2002 09:04 am
Hi Scott.
30-Dec-02 04:48:44, Scott Little wrote to Jan Vermeulen
SL> [ 29 Dec 02 17:01, Jan Vermeulen wrote to Scott Little ]
JV>> And then you get back a standard nodelist - which you will need
JV>> to convert into XML
SL> True, but probably not in the way you think, as long as the
SL> software is correctly written. I can take that SLF nodelist, and
SL> incorporate it into the XML nodelist, filling in the missing
SL> pieces. Only those nodes that don't have a native XML listing
SL> will need to be converted
SL> This is where the alternate-distribution comes in. If some *Cs
SL> don't distribute XML segments, XML systems will find alternate
SL> means by which to compile a more complete XML native nodelist,
SL> with less converted parts
JV>> in order you have a complete nodelist as required by policy.
SL> Eh, what? Which part of Policy 4.07 requires every node to have a
SL> full copy of the nodelist (as issued by the IC)
AFAIK policy only requires a complete nodelist to exist (s a membership
list) and for *Cs to have a copy as they're reesponsible for distibuting it...
(actually NCs and RCs they only need to distribute the diff files)
Indiovidual nodes can make their own choice, but require an up-to-date copy
if they are to engage in mail (other than default routing)
JV>> Again and once more: you will need nodelist-to-xml software, you
JV>> know, that software they said is a PITA to code.
SL> Users of XML or any alternate nodelists will have to accept that
SL> there may be inaccuracies in the converted portions, such as a
SL> system's name with a dot in it ending up in the domain name field
SL> as well. Such nodes can be flagged as suspicious during the
SL> conversion, and treated with caution by XML software
that won't be a new problem, we've got features like that already :(
-=> Bye <=-
---
* Origin: If at first you don't succeed, the hell with it. (3:640/1042)
