From cocoon-dev-return-41177-apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org Thu May 01 07:19:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 86680 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2003 07:19:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 86667 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 07:19:16 -0000 Received: from eos.telenet-ops.be (195.130.132.40) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 May 2003 07:19:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eos.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F7281FFC3 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 09:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.123.102] (D5E00128.kabel.telenet.be [213.224.1.40]) by eos.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0838C1FF4E for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 09:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Bug 17763 (comments from external DTD cause serializer problems) solution From: Bruno Dumon To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org In-Reply-To: <3EB05211.30403@outerthought.org> References: <1051710368.6841.10.camel@yum.ot> <3EAFF6BB.102@verizon.net> <1051720277.6841.53.camel@yum.ot> <3EB05211.30403@outerthought.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Outerthought Message-Id: <1051773515.24412.2.camel@yum.ot> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 01 May 2003 09:19:27 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 00:45, Marc Portier wrote: > Bruno Dumon wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 18:15, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > > >>Bruno Dumon wrote: > >> > >> > >>>[...] As a solution, I propose we throw all events between > >>>start/endDTD away in the avalon parser component. > >>> > >> > >>Should this be configurable behavior - is there a usecase to have these > >>events in the pipeline? > > > > > > I can't think of one. > > > > me neither, yet still, it might be a good idea to just document > this quite well, AND maybe add a log at info level stating this > > This keeps on being a very arbitrary choice, so given the > principle of least astonishment adding enough warings about this > here and there should be the least we can do > > although my biggest astonishment would come from someone that > actually has an app relying on this. > > For that manner (and while at it): "why not make it configurable > to even do away with all comments at the start?" The only ones I > see usefull to keep are in fact the ones that get inserted in > mid-pipe (transformer) by some xslt for debugging purposes... ok, I'll make it configurable (since JaxpParser is already parameterizable, it's a trivial thing to do). I don't think I'll bother to add a drop-all-comments feature though. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org