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 15:56:16 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi escribió:
> Yes, with validation switched off they are equipollent, but weren't you 
> in favor of validation?

Yes I am in favour of validation, This is an example to show you that 
you proposal and our current state without validation is equivalent.

> Let's assume that we, as you suggest IIUC, turn off DTD validation... we 
> would have the same format we have now, that is simpler to read, but 
> without editor DTD help... basically what is now in the copyless branch, 
> right?

no, I am not suggesting turning off validation, I just do not want to 
use your proposal but find a way to get non-standard features, so it can 
be expanded.

> Ok, so here is my proposal: we remove the DTD declaration from the file 
> so that it's not DTD-validated, but retain the current format. This will 
> give us the possibility of testing the non-validation without changing 
> too much. In advance we shall add a namespace declaration to the tags, 
> so that users can easily see which tags are standard and which are not.
> So, if things start getting bad we can put the DTD or RelaxNG back in 
> place with no trouble, if all goes well but users want a DTD for editors 
> we change the format, and if all goes well we keep it without validation.
> Deal?

what about this:

elements under <skinconfig> becomes standard ones.

add <feature> elements under skincont like your prososal so it can be 
use for non-standard features.

Adding this on the DTD should resolve it:

   <!ELEMENT feature (element*)>
   <!ATTLIST feature name   CDATA #IMPLIED
                     value  CDATA #IMPLIED>
   <!ELEMENT element (property*)>
   <!ATTLIST element name   CDATA #IMPLIED>
   <!ELEMENT property (#PCDATA)>
   <!ATTLIST property name   CDATA #IMPLIED>

View raw message