forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: xinclude
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:22:09 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've thought about this a bit more.  One of the problems here is that
>>>> adding xi:include elements has unexpected results.
>>>>
>>>> If the DTD is extended as above, then the validator will, I think, not
>>>> check beyond the xi:include element, and so a document may validate
>>>> even though what is being XIncluded is nonsense.  I can write
>>>>  <p><xi:include href="rubbish.xml"/></p>
>>>> and validation will succeed, because the xi:include element has the
>>>> pattern required by the DTD even though rubbish.xml isn't XML at all
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The expected behavior is that the validator recognizes that what is 
>>>> being
>>>> XIncluded is XML (as it is by default) and goes through to validate 
>>>> that
>>>> as well, silently replacing the xi:include element with whatever is
>>>> XIncluded.  I think that some parsers do this - perhaps only if an
>>>> option is set - but most don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does Xalan do it? This is the default parser for Forrest. A healthy
>>
>>
>>
>> Uhm, do you mean Xerces?  From what I can see Xalan is unaware of
>> XIncludes.
> 
> 
> Yes, I often get Xerces and Xalan names mixed up, sorry.
> 
>>>> A better approach would be to process the XIncludes before validation,
>>>> stripping off the xlmns:xi attribute from the document element and
>>>> replacing xi:includes with whatever they resolve to.  This should be
>>>> cheaper than it might seem: unless the xmlns:xi is present, the
>>>> document is simply handed on to the validator untouched.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't see an easy way of doing this as, in many cases, the included
>>> content is generated by Forrest. In fact, this would be a problem if the
>>> parser were doing the includes.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am baffled.  How would it be a problem if the parser was doing the
>> XIncludes?
> 
> 
> David points out in another message that the validate-xdocs is done 
> prior to Forrest doing any transformations on content, it only validates 
> the *source* documents.
> 
> This means that if a source document XIncludes another source document 
> that is available statically on disk/network, as in your use case, then 
> the above will work OK.
> 
> However, if a source document includes source content that is 
> dynamically generated, for example, pulled from a database/RSS Feed/Jira 
> instance etc. then we would have to fire up Forrest to generate these 
> sources. If we are validating source documents before we fire up Forrest 
> we end up in a catch 22.
> 
> One solution would be to fire up a running instance of Forrest (aka 
> forrest run) and have Xerces validate the xincludes by retrieving them 
> from the running instance of Forrest. But this really is clumsy and I 
> would guess non-trivial.
> 
> My point is, any solution that is created to better support the first 
> use case (including static content) must also work in the second use 
> case (including dynamic content).

Let me clarify so as not to discourage your hunt for a solution...

Any solution would need to work alongside a solution that works for the 
dynamically generated content stuff. Personally, I think being able to 
turn off validation on certain pages, as is currently the case, is just 
fine.

Ross

Mime
View raw message