forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New skinconf format
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:28:56 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:

> 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.

We all know that this could happen, but I repeat that it is not a 
problem with, is it?

>> 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?

Tell me.

>>> 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.

It's not correct, as the DTD helps in editing the file with an editor 
that hints the tags.

>>>> 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.

It has never helped us find our errors AFAIK. IIRC the error was that we 
did not update the DTD ;-)

>> 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.

Conceded, but still with the DTD we will have to upgrade files every 
time, unless we don't version the DTD, which is not a nice thing to do. 
It's not fail-fast.

In any case, it's useless to go on like this when we both understand the 
points of the other. What I'm asking to vote for is a compromise between 
fixed values and a more lax system. The other votes I've seen are +1, 
what is yours?

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message