On 1/30/07, Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, John R. wrote: > > > Sequence, iteration, algorithms, > > etc. are more naturally handled in code than XML document (that didn't > > stop the abomination that is XSLT though ;-) ). > > Nor did it stop NetPDL: >
Another approach to the same problem, here's a paper that describes a language without all the <> noise: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dbrumley/pubs/gapa-ndss-07.pdf The packet formats are described in BNF to the degree possible, which is probably more natural for most computer science types. It has a built-in programming language which would be easier than programming in an XML programming language. It would be nice if there were some middle ground between building in a toy language and describing packets mostly in code and hand-built tables. What one wants I think is the equivalent of Lex and Yacc but less slanted towards parsing programming languages. You would describe 90% of the protocol in BNF, and then write the remaining glue logic in C or some other language. -- John. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
