XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML

[Phil Shafer]

Konstantin Belousov writes:
>How binary format has any relevance for an application level feature ?
>What would you do with the binaries which permissions are 'r-s--x--x',
>which is not unexpected for the tools which gather system information
>and have to access things like /dev/mem ?

This would clearly not make sense.  Some meta-data should be
in the file and some in the filesystem.  Implementing the
SF_SNAPSHOT file as a note section would be silly.  But
that doesn't imply that using a note section to facilitate
proper construction of the environment for running a binary
isn't reasonable.

>You removed and did not answered a crusial question, which is a litmus
>test for your proposal.  Namely, how presence of the proposed note in
>the binary is different from DT_NEEDED tag for your library ?

Apologies; here is your original question:

>>Using the static tagging for the dynamic application properties is wrong
>>anyway.  E.g., would you consider the mere fact that the binary is linked
>>against your library, as the indication that your feature is supported ?
>>If not, how does it differ from the presence of some additional note ?

No, I'm not looking for something more explicit than a reference
to a function in a library.  I'm looking for an explicit marker
that a binary supports working in a particular environment.  That
marker could be applied by having the developer link against a
specific marking library, or by having a tool make the binary
appropriately.  But it should be something explicit.

Re: DT_NEEDED: this section holds symbols for dynamic linking.  It's
content and meaning are explicitly given in the spec.  The note
section is intended for other generic information.  It seems a
reasonable place to put the answer to the question "can this binary
make additional styles of output and how do I trigger that behavior?".

>Definitely, I do not see an addition of the fashion-of-the-day
>text-mangling output shattering enough to justify imposing the
>architecture violation.

It's partially opinion and perspective, but I don't see an architecture
violation; I see the use of a generic mechanism to carry relevant
information.  And I see this addition as a modernization that allows
better integration with fashionable tools like browsers and
client/server architectures.

Thanks,
 Phil