http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2226
Martin Mathieson <martin.mathieson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |martin.mathieson@xxxxxxxxxxx
| |m
--- Comment #11 from Martin Mathieson <martin.mathieson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-02-01 19:05:53 GMT ---
>
> First the not well-formed output should be fixed.
> Otherwise it doesnt make sense to create a output with pdml.
I'm not seeing this. I just attached the output I get from the attachment in
2185. Have you ever posted your capture so I can try it?
> Then the best idea think is to define a DTD together. This DTD should show how
> it works and gives a good fundament.
> Then everbody knows how to work with the output correctly.
> Especially I think of this specification:
>
We know what the violation is that is giving you trouble at the moment.
I'm not sure how many people care about the integrity of generated PDML files,
or at least we haven't heard from many. And I'm not convinced many people
would want to compromise on the way the dissection tree looks in the GUI to
give more pleasing PDML output.
I'll try to find time to look at your capture, once you've posted it (the next
few minutes would be ideal ;) ). After that, maybe we could consider whether
we maybe a fake protocol wrapper around top-level fields might help.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.