Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package

[David Ayers]

FWIW, here's my opinion,

I personally have no beef with autogsdoc being part of -base or not.  I 
do believe the the GSXML classes in -base(add) should be the ObjC 
abstaction layer of any xml implementation we support (even if the 
interface would need changing to support other xml implementations).  
Whereever autogsdoc ends up at, it should only rely on this abstrachtion 
layer (e.g. -base(add) ) and not any arbitrary xml implementation.

I must also admit that I find it convinient that autogsdoc is part of 
-base(add).  Not sure whether that suffices to have it there though.  
But it seems rather clumsy when (in the extreme case) your patching up 
GSXML to support alternative xml implementations and also adding 
corresponding documentation, that you would need to make you changes to 
-base(add), install them, reinstall autogsdoc and then run it back in 
-base(add) again to view the documentation.  But I'm not religous about it.

Now if anyone wants to add support for other xml implementation of 
GSXML, please offer patches.  (don't expect Richard to start supporting 
other libs as libxml2 is currenly doing the trick.)   Please have 
autogsdoc only rely on the GSXML interface and not on a specific xml 
implementation (if that isn't already the case).

If you want autogsdoc working for libFoundation or Foundation, please 
just get -baseadd working for them.  That's the prerequisit.

Cheers,
David