Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: skinconf DTD [Was: miniTOC generation]
From: David Crossley <crossley@indexgeo.com.au>
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <004301c36ebe$2a672430$7609fea9@pcramon>
References: <004301c36ebe$2a672430$7609fea9@pcramon>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1062299166.1274.3935.camel@ighp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 31 Aug 2003 13:06:06 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ramon Prades wrote:
> In my opinion having an external DTD will make future changes easier.
> Consider for example the change I've made to skinconf.xml adding a new tag:
> I have 4 different project in Forrest, so I had to manually edit skinconf 4
> times to modify the DTD to allow the new tag. Having the DTD on a different
> file would have make this much easier.

The problem will then shift to needing to maintain different versions
of the DTD. I do agree with you, we do not really want users messing
with internal DTDs. They will however need to modify the DTD declaration
from time-to-time, but that is easier.

We should wait and see what others think before doing the work.

--David

David Crossley wrote:
> Ramon Prades wrote:
> > Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >
> > > Why doesn't skinconf.xml have an external DTD?
> >
> > I don't know. I wanted to change only what was absolutely necessary, 
> > the minimum number of files.
> > 
> > In any case it would make changes like this much easier.
> > 
> > I'll take the DTD out ASAP.
> 
> Why do you want the DTD to be external? What are the advantages of changing
> what we have now?
> 
> --David