forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Noels" <>
Subject RE: [RT] On xml infrastructure work
Date Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:00:27 GMT
David Crossley wrote:

> These documents will come from a variety of input sources.
> Sure, those sources might say that they have valid documents.
> However, perhaps they have used sub-standard tools, perhaps
> they are not configured properly, perhaps they did not even
> bother with the validation step. It has been my experience that
> most document sets have problems.
> Your discussion below supports my own investigations in
> another thread "experiment with RELAX NG". I think that the
> reliable DTDs of Forrest will be able to be converted into
> RELAX NG and, with minor tweaks, used to assist validation.


So can we agree upon using DTDInst for doing the automagical translation
of DTDs to RelaxNG grammars for the time being, rather than keeping both
versions in sync manually? DTDInst's license is, seems OK for inclusion in
CVS. An Ant target who calls dtdinst.jar to do the translation should be
no problem.

I'd prefer the 'tweaking' to happen using XSLT on the generated RNG
grammar - so that is is easy to track DTD changes: using DTDInst and
re-applying tweaks with a stylesheet. Does anyone already has an idea
about the kind of tweaks which would be needed?

W.r.t. namespaces: if we want our docs to be declared in certain
namespace, we can also patch the DTD itself in order to support this:

@@ -481,6 +480,7 @@

 <!ELEMENT document (header?, body, footer?)>
 <!ATTLIST document %common.att;>
+<!ATTLIST document xmlns CDATA #FIXED

     <!-- ==================================================== -->
     <!-- Header -->

Personally, I'm +0 whether to use namespaces for the docs or not. While
it adds to the transportability of the documents, it also adds a burden
to the stylesheet authors who should make sure to match source elements
in the correct namespace, i.e. 'document:p' instead of just 'p'.

Anyway, let's just finalize the schema/grammar issue so that we can
continue to work on something less debatable ;-)



View raw message