cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "N. Sean Timm" <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Sitemap Draft - Misc. fixes and preliminary schema
Date Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:11:52 GMT
"Stefano Mazzocchi" <> wrote:
> > If you're going to have a <doc-type> node, I think it either needs to
> > in some sort of parameter namespace (which seems messy), or you should
> > to specify it like the following:
> >
> > <map:param name="doc-type" map:value="bac.dtd"/>
> > or
> > <map:param name="doc-type">bac.dtd</map:param>
> Sean, I don't see your problem with
>  <doc-type map:value="bad.dtd"/>
>  <doc-type>bac.dtd</doc-type>
> Each component will have access to configurations and namespaces don't
> make it any simpler nor more powerful.
> I vote -1 to adding a new namespace for each component. The sitemap will
> "consume" its namespace and make available to components everything
> else.
> I don't see any problem with this.

During my initial schema work, I came under the impression that those
parameters *had* to be declared in a namespace in order to create a schema
at all.  I see now that this is not the case.  So, yes, we could allow
anything in the default namespace as parameters.  The only consequence is
that all parameter names/values will not be able to be validated against a
schema.  I like the idea of being able to validate the entire sitemap
against a schema while I'm developing it.  It would certainly help prevent
certain simple (but stupid) mistakes.  :)  On the other hand...doing it like
I suggested (ie. <map:param name="foo" value="bar"/> wouldn't allow
parameter validation, either.  Like I mentioned, I didn't like declaring
namespaces for the parameters, either, but it's the only way to validate the
parameters.  Is this something anyone cares about?  I'm rather ambivalent at
this point, so I'm curious if anyone else feels that schema-based parameter
validation is important.  If not, then the default namespace works just

- Sean T.

View raw message