HAL 0.1 release

[Joe Shaw]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 16:27, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> I don't see how the current format has anything to do with
> *bindings*.  You can present whatever kind of API you want; i am
> defending the file format.  As long as the data is available in
> the file, libhal can present it however it likes.

With regards to the file format, why did you use tags like:

<data class="linux">
   <data class="module">
      <data class="name">syn53c8xx</data>
   </data>
</data>

over a more structured-feeling format:

<os type="linux">
   <module name="syn53c8xx"/>
</os>

or to borrow a phrase from Havoc, abstraction through directories, in
which you'd have a linux directory which would have a device file with
just:

<module name="syn53c8xx"/>

... or something similar?

Joe