forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan Jose Pablos <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New skinconf format
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:41 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
> The problem is that if a user does not enter a value, we can detect it 
> only if we make it mandatory. If it's not mandatory, the user can also 
> not put it in.
I am not requesting put values mandatory, but avoiding putting wrong values.

> The only thing we will be losing is the ability to tell the user that 
> some values are not correct, but in fact it's a feature, because that 
> particualr skin may want such values!

ok, I know that you want to extend the skinconf for other skins but this 
  requiered to turn validation off.

can we find another way to extend the skinconfig?

>> If the only proposal is to check for xml well formess then turn it 
>> validation off is enough.
> Sorry I don't understand.

When you suggest to have a DTD that does not change, this implies that 
the only thing that check is that the document is xml, so we are better 
of turn it on validation off and remove the DTD reference from the file.

>>> We would loose a benefit but gain others. IMHO the gains are much 
>>> bigger, especially seeing how the current system has not worked too 
>>> well.
>> could you expand on what actually has not worked too well?
> Upgrading, both for us and for the users.
> Usually when i add a value to skinconf I put it in the fresh-site and 
> document it. But then it has happened more than once that we forgot to 
> update the skinconf DTD or the relaxNG one, and Forrest was broken.

But, when you said that forrest is broken because the validation 
complains is a feature. It helps to find *our* errors. Man, I am having 
the feeling that you want us to remove our seat belt.

> Worse yet, users have to manually fix their skinconf DTD each time, and 
> there are many many mails from Adam from Gump that show plainly how he 
> could not get Forrest to work well, even if there was a DTD in place.

But this was because <!DOCTYPE and the ENTITY was in the skinconf file 
but this is not the case anymore. This has been fixed already.

View raw message