forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: XInclude
Date Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:46:57 GMT
Gavin wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian M Dube []
>> Sent: Sunday, 20 July 2008 7:19 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: XInclude
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Brian M Dube wrote:
>>>> Gavin wrote:
>>>>> Well this seemed to pass my tests locally, its late I'll look in the
>>>>> morning
>>>>> and either fix it or revert.
>>>> I committed r678217 to suppress validation on samples-b/xinclude.xml.
>>> -1
>>> Obscuring a bad commit is not good practice. We should revert the
>>> offending commit or fix the problem it introduced.
>> The problem does not appear to be trivial. The Document DTD would need
>> to allow for XInclude almost everywhere. Is this practical? What is the
>> alternative?
> Well, bad day for me, I 'assumed' we had xinclude support for our
> document-v20, so thanks for reverting.
> In another thread I'm talking about removing the todo list, one of the items
> on that list says :-
> 18. - [code] Migrate to a decent schema language, primarily so that we can
> use namespaces in XML docs, allowing things like XInclude, in-line metadata,
> in-line SVG, Jelly snippets, or anything else users can make a Transformer
> for. → open
> So it seems that is not done. I don't know the best way forward on this, we
> can add it to our DTD, create a new one and add it to our schema, point to
> something better existing or .. ??
> The patch itself seems flawless in its application, matching the W3C
> examples [1] pretty closely, so I don’t have a problem with the way they
> have been applied as such, just need to work out the best approach to
> approve the method and get it validated against our tests.

Hmmm.... I'm sure I've used XInclude without breaking validation,
however, it is many years ago now and my memory may be tricking me.

I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with DTD's.

I'd be happy to remove my -1 on the example and the validation turn off
if there was a nice big *warning* at the top of the sample page to warn
users about this and to point to an issue to fix it.


View raw message