RFC: The "xml8" patch

[Gordon Tyler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> The main reason it hasn't been included is because it isn't strictly
> safe as is. Namely at least the test suite likes to take an Inventory
> and then mutate attributes of its entries directly. (And mutating an
> item that is in a cache is a bad thing.)

I guess my question would be: Is it acceptable (i.e. part of its
contract) that a client mutate an Inventory's entries' attributes
directly? Just because a test case does it, doesn't necessarily mean
that it's right.

Ciao,
Gordon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLE1JLAAoJEIrPJfWinA2u6q0H/j3t0hVlRMM2qgrgfszqmax4
KWV6eRAjDMS7LgdjAEEqNN6ZLLD65Ywm0TVjCVPM/o4tHwKX9DQrtIKuClMf2Y3s
WGZcVqSkYUu7xLamj8UDqGJpjo7iK0UdNQ/59vEtdAwpmhBPpsjHfaIrA/4+rKPR
md6qZ2jlf6MtqFODToGFqfVj0/Z0Wp+f89b4bP8DI5TVGgy3WiyIcWQHR6DTm/c2
Dsh2EhNuu7I/2rkJhud1y8QwvQj+knIR8x8DHfYynK6++5bvIOIEnv0nhTNGanMP
7K52Vf9q7r5NbeEG3kuNOWn47v29NE0FrM5O80Rzn7yCOLM+BDrI8t/q7e2BmNU=
=p6e1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----