From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Indentation contest nxml vs xml-mode Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:52:31 +0100 Message-ID: <47D0679F.5000001@gmail.com> References: <47D03AE7.8070408@gmail.com> <00a601c87fba$febc3150$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204840396 769 80.91.229.12 (6 Mar 2008 21:53:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Emacs Devel' To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 06 22:53:43 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXO1n-00069U-4H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:53:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXO1F-0005GV-LT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXO18-0005Du-EE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXO16-0005DB-RJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXO16-0005D6-Nf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:44 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXO16-0007s9-0J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:52:44 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:59959 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JXO14-0003jc-6y; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:52:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <00a601c87fba$febc3150$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080306-1, 2008-03-06), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JXO14-0003jc-6y. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1JXO14-0003jc-6y 8b411d6ecd9267ff4d87b53bc521e54d X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91554 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: >> Try indenting the following in nxml-mode and xml-mode: >> >> >> >> Duh >> >> >> >> >> I think xml-mode wins here. If I remember correctly there are >> also some >> bugs in nxml-mode indentattion code. Is there any reason to have both >> ways of indenting, ie should not nxml-mode indentation use >> the xml-mode indentation code? > > Can you please just present the two alternatives here, so we don't have to > go through the exercise? Thx. My main point was of course to have only one code to do the indentation (I think there might be bugs in both versions today), but here is the output: ***** xml-mode Duh ***** nxml-mode Duh BTW, I just noted that the person that sent me the bug report long ago put a "duh" in the text. ;-)