Why can't we consider both XML Schema and DTD?

-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Smith" <Paul.Smith@lawlex.com.au>
To: "'Ceki Gülcü '" <ceki@qos.ch>; "'Logging General '"
<general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: log4j.dtd


+1 on 'logging-event.dtd'.

I think that the dtd describes a singular event, at the moment there is
nothing inside the dtd that indicates what a collection on logging events in
XML looks like, which is a shame.  I think the XMLReceivers (both remote and
file reading) within Chainsaw wrap a series of logging event xml snippets in
some outer xml to make it a collection.  It might be worth having this
definition within the dtd, although DTD-speak confuses me, so not sure how
to do that.

XML Schema would be easier, is that something we should consider, or if we
are targeting JDK1.2 would DTD be safer?

Paul Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Ceki Gülcü
To: Logging General
Sent: 5/4/04 3:17 AM
Subject: RE: log4j.dtd

At 07:09 PM 5/3/2004, you wrote:

>Hi,
>
> >Given that log4j.dtd has an impact on the interaction among log4*
>projects,
> >should we rename log4j.dtd to a more neutral name and move it to
>Logging
> >Services?
>
>Yeah, +1 on loggingEvents.dtd (or some other suggestion) instead of
>log4j.dtd, and accompanying CVS move.

How about "logging-event.dtd"? Camel case maybe too Java centric and 's'
as
a suffix can be source of errors.

>Yoav Shapira

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp