Hello everyone, Sometime ago I sent a patch changing the XML schema to add GTK support for libvirt. As the type for one path argument, I used the <text/> type, simply copying the similar approach from another place in the XML schema definition. I was told that it's not the best way to use the <text/> type for paths and that absFilePath, a defined basic type for paths, should be used instead. After this, I decided to fix this in a place where I had seen the same approach, too. After further investigation, I found a lot more places where the <text/> type is used for paths. Moreover, I found out that we have at least 4 type definitions for paths (files and directories). Some of these types accept simply everything, others paths starting with "/" or even Windows-style disk names. <define name="filePath"> <data type="string"> <param name="pattern">.+</param> </data> </define> <define name="dirPath"> <data type="string"> <param name="pattern">.+</param> </data> </define> <define name="absFilePath"> <data type="string"> <param name="pattern">(/|[a-zA-Z]:\\).+</param> </data> </define> <define name="absDirPath"> <data type="string"> <param name="pattern">/.*</param> </data> </define> According to this, I have the following questions: 1. Do we allow users to use relative paths, or MUST all paths be absolute? 2. Do we have to accept Windows-style paths everywhere? 3. Do we need to have different types for directories? For example, in some places, the filePath type is used for directory parameters. And as a last question, do we want to unify the basic types related to paths to maintain the schemas more consistent? Kirill